Start / Stat och kommun / Congressional Dish

Congressional Dish

An independent podcast examining what the U.

305 avsnitt • Längd: 85 min • Månadsvis

Om podden

An independent podcast examining what the U.S. Congress is doing with our money and in our names.

www.congressionaldish.com
Follow @JenBriney on Twitter

The podcast Congressional Dish is created by Jennifer Briney. The podcast and the artwork on this page are embedded on this page using the public podcast feed (RSS).

Avsnitt

CD300: Right to Repair

17 september 2024 | 78 min

You do not have the right to repair your own belongings because of intellectual property rights granted to corporations by Congress in 1998. In this episode, listen to the debate happening in Congress about if and how they should grant customers the right to repair and get a status update on the multiple efforts under way in the current Congress, including one with a good chance of becoming law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes McDonald’s Ice Cream Machines Andy Greenberg. December 14, 2023. Wired. Joseph Fawbush. March 29, 2022. FindLaw. John Deere Luke Hogg. January 8, 2024. Reason. Internet of Things Updates and Maintenance Márk Szabó. August 27, 2024. WeLiveSecurity. Massachusetts Auto Repair Law Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. DoD’s Revolving Door OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Reid Champlin. June 18, 2019. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Salary.com. Military Right to Repair Issues Kyle Mizokami. February 11, 2020. Popular Mechanics. Max Finkel. February 8, 2020. Jalopnik. Elle Ekman. November 20, 2019. The New York Times. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) Jennifer Zerkee. November 8, 2023. Simon Fraser University. Cyber Risks Sam Curry et al. January 3, 2023. samcurry.net. Apple Lawsuit Brandon Vigliarolo. December 18, 2023. The Register. NDAA Sec. 828 Jason Koebler. August 28, 2024. 404 Media. AdvaMed et al. July 30, 2024. DocumentCloud via 404 Media. Laws Bills Sec. 828 : REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO REPAIR MATERIALS. Fair Repair Act Audio Sources May 16, 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy Clip Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So the Navy acquires everything from night vision goggles to aircraft carriers through contracts with big defense contractors, but the contractors often place restrictions on these deals that prevent service members from maintaining or repairing the equipment, or even let them write a training manual without going back through the contractor. Now the contractors say that since they own the intellectual property and the technical data underlying the equipment, only they have the right to repair that equipment. These right to repair restrictions usually translate into much higher costs for DOD, which has no choice but to shovel money out to big contractors whenever DOD needs to have something fixed. So take the Navy's littoral combat ship, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the ship to be proprietary, so the Navy had to delay missions and spend millions of dollars on travel costs, just so that contractor affiliated repairmen could fly in, rather than doing this ourselves. Secretary Del Toro, when a sailor isn't allowed to repair part of their ship at sea, and a marine isn't allowed to access technical data to fix a generator on a base abroad. One solution is for the Navy to buy the intellectual property from the contractors. So can you say a little bit about what the benefits are of the Navy having technical rights for the equipment that it has purchased. Sec. Carlos Del Toro: The benefits are enormous, Senator, and we've actually had tremendous success, I'd say, in the last year and a half to two years, through the taxpayer advocacy program that we initiated when I came in. There have been three examples, one, gaining the intellectual property rights for the new ACV class of ships that will replace the AAVs. The F-35 negotiations really proved themselves out in a significant way as well, too. And lastly, the 20 F-18s that the Congress authorized in ‘22 and ‘23, we were able to make significant gains in terms of the government finally getting the intellectual property rights that were necessary for us to be able to properly sustain those moving forward. Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So I am very, very glad to hear this. I like the taxpayer advocacy project and how you're training contract officers to secure technical equipment that the Navy buys, but I think you should have the support of Congress on this. Senator Braun and I have introduced the Stop price gouging the military act to give DoD more tools to get cost and pricing data so that you will be in a better position to negotiate better deals with contractors. There's also more that we can do to ensure that the Navy and the rest of the services have the rights they need to bolster readiness. So let me ask you, Secretary Del Toro, would having a stronger focus on right to repair issues during the acquisition process, like prioritizing contract bids that give DoD fair access to repair materials, and ensuring that contract officers are looking into buying technical rights early on, would that help the Navy save costs and boost readiness at the same time? Sec. Carlos Del Toro: Very much. Senator, in fact, one of the things that we have prioritized since I came in as Secretary of the Navy, given my acquisition background, is actually those negotiations need to happen as early as possible before that we even as we develop the acquisition strategy for that contract to go out to bid, and by doing so, we will reap tremendous returns. July 18, 2023 House Judiciary Committee Witnesses: Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School , Legal Fellow, Hudson Institute’s Forum for Intellectual Property Kyle Wiens, Co-founder and CEO, iFixit Paul Roberts, Founder, SecuRepairs.org; Founder and Editor-in-Chief, the Security Ledger Scott Benavidez, Chairman, Automotive Service Association; Owner, Mr. B’s Paint & Body Shop Clips 41:25 Scott Benavidez: My name is Scott Benavidez. I'm the Chairman of the Automotive Service Association's Board of Directors. I am also a second generation shop owner from Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mr. B's Paint and Body Shop. Scott Benavidez: We do have concerns when some insurers insist on repairs that are simply cheaper and quicker, without regard to quality and safety. Repairers understand better than anyone the threat of replacement crash parts or lesser quality. We can and should have a competitive marketplace that doesn't compromise quality or safety, deciding to only cover the cheapest option without understanding implications for quality leaves collision shops and their customers in a tough position. Very few consumers have the knowledge about these types of crash parts used on their vehicles as numerous crash parts in the marketplace, such as OEM (original equipment manufactured) parts, certified aftermarket parts, aftermarket parts, reconditioned crash parts, and recycled crash parts. Repairers can make recommendations, but their customers are unlikely to hear if the insurance won't cover them. 46:45 Paul Roberts: My name is Paul Roberts, and I'm the founder of Secure Repairs. We're an organization of more than 350 cyber security and information technology professionals who support the right to repair. 46:55 Paul Roberts: I'm speaking to you today on behalf of our members to make clear that the fair access to repair materials sought by right to repair laws does not increase cyber risk, and in fact, it can contribute to a healthier and more secure ecosystem of smart and connected devices. Paul Roberts: Proposed right to repair legislation considered by this Congress, such as the Repair Act, or last session, the Fair Repair Act, simply asks manufacturers that already provide repair information and tools to their authorized repair providers to also provide them at a fair and reasonable price to the owners of the devices and to third parties that they may wish to hire to do their work. 47:35 Paul Roberts: By definition, the information covered by right to repair laws is not sensitive or protected, as evidenced by the fact that the manufacturers already distribute it widely to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of workers for their authorized repair providers. This could be everyone from mechanics working at auto dealerships to the folks staffing the Geek Squad at Best Buy. 48:00 Paul Roberts: Also, we have yet to find any evidence that the types of information covered by right to repair laws like schematic diagrams, service manuals, diagnostic software and replacement parts act as a portal to cyber attacks. The vast majority of attacks on internet connected devices - from broadband routers to home appliances to automobiles - today exploit weaknesses in the embedded software produced and distributed by the manufacturers, or alternatively, weak device configurations so they're deployed on the internet in ways that make them vulnerable to attack. These security weaknesses are an epidemic. A recent study of the security of Internet of Things devices, by the company Phosphorus Labs, or a cybersecurity company, found that 68% of Internet of Things devices contained high risk or critical software vulnerabilities. As an example, I'd like to call attention to the work of a group of independent researchers recently led by Sam Curry, who published a report, and you can Google this, "Web Hackers vs. the Auto Industry" in January 2023. That group disclosed wide ranging and exploitable flaws in vehicle telematics systems from 16 different auto manufacturers. At a leading GPS supplier to major automakers, the researchers claimed to obtain full access to a company-wide administration panel that gave them the ability to send arbitrary commands to an estimated 15.5 million vehicles, including vehicles used by first responders, police, fire and so on. Hacks like this take place without any access to repair materials, nor is there any evidence that providing access to repair software will open the doors to new attacks. 50:05 Paul Roberts: For the last 25 years, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has given manufacturers an incentive to deploy software locks widely and to limit access to security researchers. That's kind of a model what we call in cybersecurity, security through obscurity. In other words, by keeping the workings of something secret, you're making it secure. But in fact, that doesn't work, because cyber criminals are very resourceful and they're very determined, and they don't really care what the law says. 50:35 Paul Roberts: Section 1201 has also enabled what one researcher has described as dark patterns in the design and manufacture of hardware that includes everything from locking out customers from access to administrative interfaces, administrative features of the products that they own, as well as practices like part pairing, which Kyle will talk to you more about, in which manufacturers couple replaceable components like screens and sensors and cameras to specific device hardware. Such schemes make manufacturers and their authorized repair providers gatekeepers for repairs, and effectively bar competition from the owners of the devices as well as independent repair providers. 54:45 Kyle Wiens: You think about what is local? What is American? Main Street you have a post office and a repair shop. And unfortunately, we've seen the whittling down of Main Street as the TV repair shops went away when the manufacturers cut off access to schematics, as the camera repair shops went away when Nikon and Canon decided to stop selling them parts. We've seen this systematically across the economy. In the enterprise space, you have Oracle and IBM saying that you can't get security updates to critical cyber infrastructure unless you buy a service contract with them, so they're tying long term service contracts with the security updates that are necessary to keep this infrastructure secure. 56:45 Kyle Wiens: Over the last decade plus, I've been working on Section 1201, trying to get exemptions for the ability to repair products. The challenge that we've had in the section 1201 process every triennial I go back and we ask for permission to be able to fix our own things is that the exemptions we've gotten really only apply to individual consumers. They aren't something that I could use to make a tool to provide to one of you to fix yourself. So in order for someone to take advantage of a 1201 exemption that we have, they have to be a cybersecurity researcher and able to whittle their own tools and use it themselves, and that just doesn't scale. 57:45 Devlin Hartline: My name is Devlin Hartline, and I'm a legal fellow at the Hudson Institute's forum for intellectual property. 57:50 Devlin Hartline: I'd like to start with a question posed by the title of this hearing, is there a right to repair? And the answer is clearly no. A right is a legally enforceable claim against another, but the courts have not recognized that manufacturers have the duty to help consumers make repairs. Instead, the courts have said that while we have the ability to repair our things, we also have the duty not to infringe the IP rights in the process. So it is in fact, the manufacturers who have the relevant rights, not consumers. 58:30 Devlin Hartline: Right to repair supporters want lawmakers to force manufacturers to make the tools, parts, and know-how needed to facilitate repairs available to consumers and independent repair shops. And the assumption here is that anything standing in the way of repair opportunities must necessarily harm the public good, but these tools, parts and know-how, are often protected by IP rights such as copyrights and design patents. And we protect copyrighted works and patented inventions because, as the Constitution recognizes, this promotes the public good. We reward creators and innovators as an incentive for them to bring these things to the marketplace and the public benefits from the introduction of new products and services that increase competition. Thus, the right to repair movement isn't based on a pre-existing right. It's instead asking lawmakers to create a new right at the expense of the existing rights of IP owners. 1:00:45 Devlin Hartline: IP owners are merely exercising their federally protected IP rights, and this is not actionable anti-competitive conduct. It is instead how the IP system is supposed to work. We grant IP owners exclusive rights so they can exclude others, and this, in turn, promotes the investments to create and to commercialize these creative innovations in the marketplace, and that promotes the public good. Aaron Perzanowski: My name is Aaron Perzanowski. I am a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and for the last 15 years, my academic research has focused on the intersection of personal and intellectual property rights in the digital economy. During that time, the right to repair has emerged as a central challenge to the notion that we as consumers control the devices that we buy. Instead consumers, farmers, small businesses, all find that manufacturers exert post-sale control over these devices, often in ways that frustrate repair. Aaron Perzanowski: Repair is as old as humanity. Our Paleolithic ancestors repaired hand axes and other primitive tools, and as our technologies have grown more complex, from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance, to the high tech devices that we all have in our pockets here today, repair has always kept pace. But today, manufacturers are employing a range of strategies that restrict repair, from their hardware and software design choices to clamp downs on secondary markets, and we also troublingly see attempts to leverage IP rights as tools to restrict repair. These efforts are a major departure from the historical treatment of repair under the law, the right to repair is not only consistent with nearly two centuries of IP law in the United States, it reflects half a millennium of common law property doctrine that rejects post-sale restrictions on personal property as early as the 15th century. English property law recognized that once a property owner sells an item, efforts to restrain how the new owner of that item can use it are inconsistent with the essential nature of private property and obnoxious to public policy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, IP laws' respect for the property interests of purchasers of copyrighted and patented goods was profoundly shaped by this common law tradition. In 1850, the Supreme Court recognized that the repair of a patented machine reflected "no more than the exercise of that right of care, which everyone may use to give duration to that which he owns." A century later, the Court held that the repair of a convertible car roof was justified as an exercise of "the lawful right of the property owner to repair his property." And just a few years ago, the court reaffirmed the rejection of post-sale restrictions under patent law in Impression Products vs. Lexmark, a case about refurbishing printer ink cartridges. Copyright law, not surprisingly, has had fewer occasions to consider repair restrictions. But as early as 1901, the Seventh Circuit recognized "a right of repair or renewal under US copyright law." When a publisher sued to prevent a used book dealer from repairing and replacing damaged components of books, the court said that "the right of ownership in the book carries with it and includes the right to maintain the book as nearly as possible in its original condition." A century after that, Congress itself acknowledged repair as a right that owners enjoy, regardless of copyright restrictions, when it enacted section 117 C of the Copyright Act. That provision was designed to undo a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed copyright holders to prevent third party repairs of computers. Section 117 C explicitly permits owners of machines to make copies of computer programs in the course of maintenance or repair. And finally, the US Copyright Office over the last decade has repeatedly concluded that diagnosis, repair, and maintenance activities are non-infringing when it comes to vehicles, consumer devices, and medical equipment. So the right to repair is firmly rooted in basic principles of US IP law. Aaron Perzanowski: Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it practically impossible for consumers to exercise their lawful right to repair a wide range of devices, from tractors to home electronics, even though the copyright office says those activities are not infringing, and the weakening of standards for design patents allow firms to choke off the supply of replacement parts needed to repair vehicles, home appliances, and other devices. Aaron Perzanowski: One way to think about a right is as an affirmative power to force someone else to engage in some behavior, and in some cases, that is what we're talking about. We're talking about imposing, especially on the state level, regulations that impose requirements on manufacturers. I think that's true of the Repair Act on the federal level as well. But, I think part of what we also need to keep in mind is that sometimes what you need to effectuate a right is to eliminate barriers that stand in the way of that right. So we can think about this, I think, helpfully in the context of tools that enable people to engage in repair. The state level solution has been to require manufacturers to give their own tools to repair shops, sometimes compensated under fair and reasonable terms. The other solution would be to change section 1201 to say, let's allow independent repair shops to make their own tools. I think both of those solutions have some value to them. I also think it's really important to keep in mind that when we're talking about IP rights, there are always multiple sets of interests at stake, and one of the key balances that IP law has always tried to strike is the balance between the limited statutory exclusive rights that the Patent and Copyright Acts create and the personal property rights of consumers who own these devices. And so I think a balancing is absolutely necessary and appropriate. 1:15:20 Aaron Perzanowski: I think the best solution for Section 1201 is embodied in a piece of legislation that Representatives Jones and Spartz introduced in the last Congress, which would create a permanent exception to Section 1201 for repair that would apply not only to the act of circumvention, but would also apply to the creation and distribution of tools that are useful for repair purposes that does not open the door to broad, unrestrained, creation of circumvention tools, but tools that are that are targeted to the repair market. 1:16:40 Devlin Hartline: He cited a case about where you can repair a cover on a book. That's very different than recreating the book, every single word in it, right? So there's a difference between repairing something and then crossing the line into violating the exclusive rights of IP owners in the patented product or the copyrighted book. And so the things that repair supporters are asking for is that, if somebody has a design patent that covers an auto body part, well, they have the right to exclude other people from making that part, but repair supporters say they shouldn't have that exclusive right, because, you know, we could increase competition if we just took away their design patent and now other people could make that part, and so that's competition. But that's not the type of competition that IP law and competition law seek to support. That's like saying, if we just let the Pirate Bay copy and distribute all of the Disney blockbuster movies, then that's competition, and prices would go down. But that's not the way that we do it, right? So competition means other people come up with new products and new services, and so that's what we should be trying to support. 1:26:45 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Repair advocates argue that section 1201, prevents non-infringing circumvention of access controls for purposes. But Congress contemplated this use when it passed the DMCA in 1998, allowing for a triennial exemption process. Is the exemption process working as intended? And if not, are there actions Congress can take to expand exemptions or make them easier to acquire? Devlin Hartline: What's important about the triennial rulemaking is that the proponent of an exemption has to come forward with evidence and demonstrate that there's actually a problem and it relates to a certain class of works, and then they can get a temporary exemption for three years. And so it is true that the Librarian of Congress, the last few rulemakings, has said that because using a copyrighted work in a way for repair, maintenance, etc, is Fair Use that they grant these exemptions. But these exemptions are quite narrow. They do not allow the trafficking of the computer programs that can crack the TPMs. And so it's very narrowly done. And the concern is that if you were to create a permanent exemption that opens things all the way up with access controls, copy controls and trafficking thereof, is now you're getting to the point of why we even have these TPMs under 1201 in the first place, and that's because they guard against piracy. And so the concern is that you're opening the piracy floodgates. You make these devices less secure, and then content owners are going to be less likely to want to put their content on these devices. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): How does section 1201 of the DMCA impact the ability of consumers and independent repair shops to modify or repair devices that have proprietary software and data in the consumer electronics industry? Aaron Perzanowski: Thank you so much for the question. As we've been talking about the copyright office in 2015, 2018, 2021, and they're in the process for the current rulemaking, has determined that engaging in circumvention, the removal or bypassing of these digital locks for purposes of repair, is perfectly lawful behavior, but there is a major practical mismatch here between the legal rights that consumers enjoy under federal law today and their practical ability to exercise those rights. And that's because, as Devlin was just describing, the section 1201 rulemaking does not extend to the creation or distribution of tools, right? So I have the right under federal law, to remove the technological lock, say, on my video game console, if I want to swap out a broken disk drive. How do I do that? I'd like to think of myself as a pretty technologically sophisticated person. I don't have the first clue about how to do that. I need a person who can write that code, make that code available to consumers so that I can. All I'm trying to do is swap out a broken disk drive on my video game. But you would argue that code is proprietary, correct? So I'm talking here about a third party making their own code that is simply allowing me to engage in activity that the Copyright Office has repeatedly said is non-infringing. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): So you want to give them a map. Is that, essentially, what you're saying? Aaron Perzanowski: Absolutely, yes, I do. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): Do trade secrets play a role in the right to repair debate? Aaron Perzanowski: There are occasions where trade secrets are important. I don't think in the context that we're talking about here with section 1201, that we're typically running into trade secret issues. The state-level bills that have been introduced do typically address trade secrets and often have carve outs there. And I think that's something worth considering in this debate. But I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have some hypothetical worry about some unknown bad actor taking a tool that I use to fix my video game console -- Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): It's not unknown. The Chinese do it all the time. Aaron Perzanowski: I don't think the Chinese are particularly worried about whether or not I can fix my video game console, and in fact, I think that point is important, but the bad actors already have these tools. All we're trying to do is get very targeted tools in the hands of law abiding citizens who just want to repair the stuff they buy for their kids for Christmas, right? If the Chinese are going to hack the PlayStation, they've already done it. 1:32:25 Aaron Perzanowski: So the 1201 process is what established the legality of circumvention for repair purposes. But when Congress created that rulemaking authority, it only extends to the act of circumvention, the actual removal. Congress did not give the [Copyright] Office or the Librarian [of Congress] the authority to grant exemptions to the trafficking provisions, and that's where I think legislative intervention is really important. 1:39:00 Kyle Wiens: One of the challenges was section 1201. It doesn't just ban repair tools, it also bans the distribution of cybersecurity tools. And so we've seen security researchers....Apple sued a company that made a security research tool under 1201 and that tool has markedly made the world more secure. It's very popular amongst government security researchers. So I think that's kind of the sweet spot is, allow some third party inspection. It'll make the product better. 1:41:25 Kyle Wiens: These ice cream machines are made by Taylor, and there is an incredibly complex, baroque set of touchscreens you have to go through. And then there's a service password you have to be able to get past in order to access the settings that really allow you to do what you want. And so, in an ideal world, you'd have an entrepreneur who would come along and make a tool to make it easier for McDonald's, maybe they could have an app on their phone that they could use to configure and help them diagnose and repair the machine. Unfortunately, the company who made that tool is struggling legally because of all these challenges across the board. If we had innovation outside of the manufacturers and to be able to develop new tools for fixing ice cream machines or anything else, you have a whole flowering ecosystem of repair tools right now. It doesn't exist. The US is like this black hole where innovation is banned in software repair. There's all kinds of opportunities I could see, I had a farmer ask me for help fixing his John Deere tractor, and I had to say, I can't do that particular repair because it's illegal. I'd love to build a cool app for helping him diagnose and fix his tractor and get back back in the field faster. We don't have that marketplace right now. It's like farmers have been forced to, like, use cracked Ukrainian versions of John Deere diagnostic software, right? Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So it's not just ice cream machines. I led off with that, but it's farmers, it's farm equipment, it's iPhones, it's somebody's Xbox, right? I mean, these are all things.... in your experience, what are the challenges that these customers and stakeholders face when they're trying to repair their own devices? What are some things that they face? Kyle Wiens: It's absolutely infuriating. So my friend, farmer in San Luis Obispo, Dave grows all kinds of amazing products. He has a $300,000 John Deere tractor, came to me and said, Hey, there's a bad sensor. It's going to take a week to get that sensor sent out from Indiana, and I need to use the tractor in that time. Will you help me bypass the sensor? I could hypothetically modify the software in the tractor to do that. Practically, I didn't have the legal ability, and so he had to go and rent an expensive tractor for the week. This is impacting people's lives every single day. 1:43:50 Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So, to pivot a little bit, what role do you see from a federal side, from legislation, and what specific measures do you think might be included in such legislation? Kyle Wiens: So we've seen the solutions being approached from two angles. At the state level, you have states saying John Deere and other manufacturers, if you have a dealership that has fancy tools, sell those tools to consumers and to independent shops, allow that competition. At the federal level, what we can do is enable a competitive marketplace for those tools. So rather than compelling John Deere to sell the tool, we can say, hey, it's legal for someone, an entrepreneur, to make a competing tool. And you have this in the car market. You can take your car down the AutoZone, you can buy a scan tool, plug it into your car, and it'll decode some of the error messages. Those tools exist on the auto market because we have a standard diagnostic interface on cars that you can access without circumventing a TPM. We don't have that for any other products. So another farmer in my town, he showed me how if he has a transmission go out on a truck, he can fix that. But if he has a transmission go out on his John Deere tractor, he can't. He can physically install the transmission, but he can't program it to make it work. I'd love to be able to make a software tool to enable him to replace his transmission. Aaron Perzanowski: So I think if we see passage of the SMART Act, we can anticipate significant reductions in the expenses associated with auto collision repairs. Estimates are that design patents on collision parts are responsible for about $1.5 billion in additional expenditures. We see price premiums on OEM parts over third party parts often reaching into like the 40% range, right? So these are pretty significant cost savings associated with that. Part of this problem, I think, does relate back to the kind of unique structure of this market. Most consumers are not paying out of pocket for collision repairs. Those costs are being covered by their auto insurance provider, and so the consumer doesn't see that the - I'm pulling this from memory, so don't hold me to this figure - but the side view mirror of a Ford Fiesta costing $1,500, that's not something that the consumer is confronted with, right? So this goes back to the question of notice. Do consumers know when they buy that vehicle that the repairs are going to be that expensive? I think in most cases, they don't. And so I think the SMART Act is a very targeted solution to this problem. I do think it's important to note that the design patent issue for replacement parts is not limited to the automotive industry. I think it's the most, I think that's the area where the problem is most pressing. But home appliances, consumer electronics, we see companies getting design patents on replacement water filters for refrigerators so that they can charge three times as much when the little light comes on on your fridge to tell you that your water might not be as clean as you want it to be. So I think we have to think about that problem across a range of industries, but the automotive industry, I think, is absolutely the right place to start. Paul Roberts: I mean, one point I would just make is that with the Internet of Things, right, we are facing a crisis in the very near future as manufacturers of everything from home appliances to personal electronics to equipment, as those products age and those manufacturers walk away from their responsibility to maintain them. So we're no longer supporting the software. We're no longer issuing security updates. Who will step in to maintain those devices? Keep them secure, keep them operating right? The manufacturers walked away. Do we just get rid of them? No, because the equipment still works perfectly. We're going to need a market-based response to that. We're going to need small businesses to step up and say, hey, I'll keep that Samsung dishwasher working for another 20 years. That's a huge economic opportunity for this country, but we cannot do it in the existing system because of the types of restrictions that we're talking about. And so this is really about enabling a secure future in which, when you buy a dishwasher with a 20 year lifespan, or 25 year lifespan, it's going to last that 25 years, not the five to six years that the manufacturer has decided, you know, that's how long we want to support the software for. Paul Roberts: My understanding is the use of design patents has increased dramatically, even exponentially, in the last 10 to 15 years. If you go back to the 90s or 80s, you know, parts makers, automakers were not applying these types of patents to replaceable parts like bumpers and rear view mirrors. Somebody had a business decision that, if you can do so, then we can capture more of that aftermarket by outlawing identical aftermarket replacements that has a huge downstream impact on car owners and on insurers and on all of us. 2:10:15 Paul Roberts: Both of the things that we're really proposing or talking about here, which would be changes to Section 1201 of the DMCA as well as passage of robust right to repair laws, would empower a market-based response to keeping the internet of things working, secure and functioning. DMCA 1201 reforms by making it clear that you can circumvent software locks for the purpose of repair and maintenance and upkeep, right? So that would take the threat of the federal crime away from small business owners as well as security researchers who are interested in, you know, plumbing that software for purposes of maintenance, upkeep and repair. And on the right to repair by making the tools available to maintain and upkeep products - diagnostic software, schematic diagrams, service manuals - available. Once again, you'll be empowering small business owners to set up repair shops and say, I'm going to keep your smart appliance running for its full 25 or 30 year lifespan, and I'm going to support my family doing that locally, and not be basically choked out of business by a company that says, Well, you don't have the right to access this product. From a cybersecurity perspective, that is really important, because one thing we don't want is a population of millions or tens of millions of out of date, unsupported, unpatched, insecure internet connected home appliances, webcams, home routers out there available to nation state actors, cyber criminal groups, to compromise and use for their own purposes. And that's something we already see, particularly around broadband routers and other types of devices, and it's a real threat going forward that I think this type of these types of changes would support. Aaron Perzanowski In a lot of instances, this conversation, and we've touched on this earlier, focuses on cost savings, right? And cost savings are an important consideration, right? Farmers aren't thrilled that they have to pay a technician from the John Deere dealer to drive maybe hours to get to their farm and connect their laptop and, you know, download these payload files to enable their equipment to work. But in the agricultural space, the thing I hear most often in the conversations I have with farmers is and Kyle touched on this a bit earlier, is a real concern about the time sensitivity of their work. If your tractor is out of commission for a week or two in the wrong part of the season, that is going to have disastrous effects, right, not only on that farm's economic outlook, but collectively, it can have an impact like, not to be hyperbolic here, but on our national food supply, and so I think it's really important that farmers have flexibility in terms of where and how they execute repairs, so that they can get their equipment back up and running. If my laptop breaks and I can't get it fixed for a week or two, I'm annoyed there will be emails that go unanswered, but like the world will continue to spin. That is not the case in the agricultural space where we, I think, have to be much more concerned. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): If I remove from my BMW, at least during certain models, I remove the radio, unplug it, and then plug it back in, simply because I was fiddling around with the dash, I now have to go back to the dealer to reinstall it. Similarly, the transmission example. I've got two John Deere tractors. One's got a busted engine, the other's got a busted transmission. Currently, they will prohibit you from moving the transmission from one to the other. From a standpoint of intellectual property, where, in God's green earth or the Constitution, are any of those designed to be rights that belong to the manufacturer, rather than rights that belong to the owners of those two John Deere tractors? Devlin Hartline: So those are a bunch of different situations, and so I think there would be underlying facts that differ with each right. So we started on the iPhone, and I was going to point out that iPhone will actually give you the tool to synchronize it. In those other situations, I don't know the business justification for it. How is that an IP problem? Right? So if that's locked up with the TPM, and you have to bypass the TPM, well then that's a violation of 1201, so that's how they can that's how they can lock -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): So what you're saying is that Congress has created impediments to the right to repair. Mr. Roberts, would you say that is correct? That, in fact, the right to repair, were Congress never to have done anything since, you know, George and Thomas were our presidents, so to speak, knowing those two presidents, we'd be able to do things we're not able to do because they're now prohibited by acts of Congress. Paul Roberts: Yes, and we certainly know going back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, there was a much more you know....First of all, companies would ship products with service and repair manuals with detailed schematic diagrams with the understanding that owners would want to replace and service them. And what I would say is, yes, absolutely. I doubt very much. And I know we had members who were here in 1998 authoring the DMCA. I think if you had said to them, in 25 years time, this law will be used to prevent somebody with a broken dishwasher from getting that serviced by their local repair shop or by for fixing it themselves, this law will prevent them from doing that, I doubt very much they would have said, yeah, that's pretty much what we want. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): Well, I will tell you that the I was the chairman of what is now the Consumer Electronics Association in 1998 and we did predict a lot of these items were going to be expanded beyond the scope of the original. Paul Roberts: Right now this is not an urgent issue, because most of the cars out there are older vehicles. As we move forward, as telematic systems evolve, as automakers continue their trend of moving more and more information to telematic systems, this is going to become a bigger problem. I'll point out another problem, which is the Massachusetts law is contingent on data transfers of diagnostic and repair information via the OBD or onboard diagnostic two port under the dashboard. That's only there because of federal Clean Air law. Electronic vehicles don't have that port because they don't have emissions, and so in the very near future, as we shift to electronic vehicles, that data access port will no longer be there. It will all be telematics data, and so the utility of the Massachusetts law is going to decline over time, going forward. And again, I you know, when you start talking about right to repair, you become like this crazy person who talks about right to repair every time it comes up. But one thing I try and stress to people when I talk to them about auto repair is, if you live in Michigan or California and you have taken your vehicle to the local independent repair shop, you have only done that because the voters in Massachusetts passed a ballot measure over a decade ago and then updated it in November 2020. That is the very thin thread that our right to use independent auto repair hangs by in this country. That's not the way it's supposed to be. This is something that affects vehicle owners, hundreds of millions of them in all 50 states. And it's a type of thing that the federal government needs to address with federal legislation. It should not hang by this very thin thread. 2:30:20 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Are software updates new creations, and thus copyrightable? Devlin Hartline: Software updates, yeah, they're computer programs, and so Congress said explicitly in 1980, but it was understood before then, that computer programs are literary works and they're protected, just like any other copyrighted work. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Thank you, Professor Perzanowski, do you disagree? Aaron Perzanowski: I don't disagree at all that software updates are protectable subject matter under the Copyright Act. But what I think is important to keep in mind right is the Copyright Act and copyrights exclusive rights, and all of the exceptions and limitations to copyrights exclusive rights are created by Congress, and so if you think those rights are interfering with other important issues and concerns, then I think Congress clearly has the power to make changes to the copyright law in order to best serve what you ultimately determine to be in the public interest. 2:35:30 Aaron Perzanowski: Access to firmware and other code is really essential to the functioning and repair of lots of devices. I think there's some important differences between the standard essential patent context and kind of what we're talking about here in that in the standard essential patent context, we're relying on standard setting bodies to identify technologies and to require companies to license their patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. We don't quite have that infrastructure in place in the copyright context, but what we do have are compulsory licenses that exist within the Copyright Act already, one of which you were alluding to earlier, the mechanical license for musical works. We also have compulsory licenses for retransmissions of satellite and broadcast content that essentially say the copyright owner is entitled to compensation of some form, but they're not entitled to prevent people from using or accessing that underlying work, and I think that could be a useful framework here for getting owners of devices access to the firmware that they need. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD299: DNC 2024

28 augusti 2024 | 65 min

CD298: Drafting WWIII

18 augusti 2024 | 90 min

The Senate recently received testimony from the bipartisan co-chairs of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, who were tasked with creating a report to Congress with recommendations needed to adapt our National Defense Strategy to current threats. In this episode, hear the testimony about that completed report during which they discuss preparations for a possible world war and the need for more American kids to fight and die in it. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Report Jane Harman et al. July 2024. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Jane Harman: Warmonger Open Secrets. October 10, 2002. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. September 14, 2001. GovTrack. Iridium Communications April 2, 2024. wallmine. GuruFocus Research. March 8, 2024. Yahoo Finance. December 29, 2023. Market Screener. Bing. Iridium. Iridium. Iridium. Retrieved from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine version archived November 11, 2022. Axis of Aggression or Axis of Resistance? Angela Skujins. June 8, 2024. euronews. Nikita Smagin. June 15, 2023. Carnegie Politika. Defense Innovation Unit Defense Innovation Unit. Military Service Kristy N. Kamarck. December 13, 2016. Congressional Research Service. Christopher Hitchens. October 3, 2007. Vanity Fair. Mark Daily. Feb. 14, 2007. Los Angeles Times. Israel-Palestine Shay Fogelman. August 16, 2024. Haaretz. Steven Scheer and Ali Sawafta. August 14, 2024. Reuters. July 2, 2024. Al Mayadeen English. Steve Crawshaw. January 26, 2024. The Guardian. Patreon August 12, 2024. Patreon. C-SPAN Fundraiser C-SPAN. Bills: NDAA 2025 Audio Sources July 30, 2024 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: Jane M. Harman, Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Eric S. Edelman, Vice Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Clips 26:20 Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): The document details the way in which the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Assessment, completed just two years ago, did not adequately account for the threat of simultaneous and increasingly coordinated military action by our four primary adversaries. A group which I have come to call the Axis of Aggressors. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): I appreciate the Commission's recommendation that national security spending must return to late Cold War levels — a goal which matches my plan to spend 5%, eventually, of GDP on defense. That level of investment would be temporary. It would be a down-payment on the rebuilding of our national defense tools for a generation. Tools that have sharpened can reduce the risk that our adversaries will use military force against US interests. 33:10 Jane Harman: The threats to US national security and our interests are greater than any time since World War II, and more complex than any threats during the Cold War. 34:00 Jane Harman: Sadly, we think, and I'm sure you agree, that the public has no idea how great the threats are and is not mobilized to meet them. Public support is critical to implement the changes we need to make. Leaders on both sides of the aisle and across government need to make the case to the public and get their support. Eric Edelman: There is potential for near-term war and a potential that we might lose such a conflict. The partnership that's emerged among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a major strategic shift that we have not completely accounted for in our defense planning. It makes each of those countries potentially stronger militarily, economically, and diplomatically, and potentially can weaken the tools we have at our disposal to deal with them. And it makes it more likely that a future conflict, for instance, in the Indo-Pacific, would expand across other theaters and that we would find ourselves in a global war that is on the scale of the Second World War. Eric Edelman: The 2022 NDS identified China as the pacing challenge. We found that China is, in many ways, outpacing the US. While we still have the strongest military in the world with the farthest global reach, when we get to a thousand miles of China's shore, we start to lose our military dominance and could find ourselves on the losing end of a conflict. China's cyber capabilities, space assets, growing strategic forces, and fully modernized conventional forces are designed to keep us from engaging in the Taiwan Strait or the South or East China seas. China, as has been testified to before Congress, has infiltrated our critical infrastructure networks to prevent or deter US action by contesting our logistics, disrupting American power and water, and otherwise removing the sanctuary of the homeland that we have long enjoyed. 38:00 Eric Edelman: For its part, Russia has reconstituted its own defense industrial base after its invasion of Ukraine much more rapidly than people anticipated. Vladimir Putin seeks to reassert Russia as a great power and is happy to destabilize the world in order to do so. 38:15 Eric Edelman: Our report describes the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and terrorism as well. Clearly, Iran and North Korea both feel emboldened by the current environment, and terrorism remains a potent threat fueled by the proliferation of technology. As the DNI has said, the current war in the Middle East is likely to have a generational impact on terrorism. 39:20 Jane Harman: First finding: DoD cannot and should not provide for the national defense by itself. The NDS calls for an integrated deterrence that is not reflected in practice today. A truly all elements of national power approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the Executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and US allies and partners. We agree with the NDS on the importance of allies, and we commend the administration for expanding and strengthening NATO and building up relationships and capabilities across Asia. We also point out ways for the United States to be better partners ourselves, including by maintaining a more stable presence globally and in key organizations like NATO. We call for reducing barriers to intelligence sharing, joint production, and military exports so we can better support and prepare to fight with our closest allies. 40:25 Jane Harman: Second recommendation is fundamental shifts in threats and technology require fundamental change in how DoD functions. This is particularly true of how DoD works with the tech sector, where most of our innovation happens. We say that DoD is operating at the speed of bureaucracy when the threat is approaching wartime urgency. DoD structure is optimized for research and development for exquisite, irreplaceable platforms when the future is autonomy, AI and large numbers of cheaper and attritable systems. I know this because I represented the Aerospace Center of Los Angeles in Congress for so many years, where exquisite, irreplaceable satellite platforms were built. And now we know that there is a plethora of commercial platforms that can do many of the same things and offer redundancy. DoD programs like Replicator and the Defense Innovation Unit and the Office of Strategic Capital are great, but they're essentially efforts to work around the larger Pentagon system. 42:00 Eric Edelman: Mr. Wicker, you raised the issue of the foresizing construct in your opening statement, and we, as you noted, found that it is inadequate. I mean, it was written actually before the invasion of Ukraine and before the emergence of this tightening alliance between Russia and China. And we propose that the force needs to be sized, the joint force, in conjunction with US allies and partners, to defend the homeland, but simultaneously be able to deal with threats in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. These are not all the same fights, so different elements of the force would be required in different parts of the globe, but US global responsibilities require a global military response as well as a diplomatic and economic one. 43:20 Eric Edelman: The DoD workforce and the all-volunteer force provide us with a kind of unmatched advantage, but recruiting failures have shrunk the force and have raised serious questions about the sustainability of the all-volunteer force in peacetime, let alone if we had to mobilize for a major conflict or a protracted conflict. 44:30 Jane Harman: Additionally, we think that Congress should revoke the 2023 spending caps and provide real growth — I know Senator Wicker loves this one — for fiscal year 2025 defense and non-defense national security spending that, at a bare minimum, falls within the range recommended by the 2018 NDS Commission. That range was never achieved. Subsequent budgets will require spending that puts defense and other components of national security, other components jointly across government and the tech sector and partners and allies, on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the US national efforts seen during the Cold War. Jane Harman: We agree on a unanimous basis that the national debt is its own national security challenge. If we want to approach Cold War levels of spending, we need to increase resources and reform entitlement spending. 45:40 Jane Harman: During the Cold War, top marginal income tax rates were above 70% and corporate tax rates averaged 50%. We don't call for those numbers, but we are calling for an increase in resources and point out that interest on the debt is higher than our total top line of defense spending. 49:55 Jane Harman: The notion of public service isn't new as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's been around for years. It was around when I served in Congress, and Congress did not act on any of the proposals that I saw. It is still a way to get all of the public, at the proper age, engaged in understanding the requirements of citizenship. A lot of our young people have no earthly idea, sadly, because they have no civic education, what our government really is and what are the ways to serve. And surely one of the most honorable ways to serve is as a member of the military, you did it, and other members of this committee have done this. And I think that is the way to revive a kind of sense of coherence and patriotism that we are lacking right now. Eric Edelman: We have not really, as a society, talked about the need for national mobilization, but if the worst were to happen and some of the worst scenarios we discuss in our report were to come to pass and were we to face a global conflict, it would require mobilization on the scale of what we did as a nation during World War II. And we haven't done that in a long time. We haven't thought about that in a long time. There are a lot of elements to it, including stockpiling strategic materials, but being able to rapidly bring people into the military, et cetera, I just don't think we are prepared to do it. I think we have to have a national discussion about this, and I think it goes hand in hand with the earlier discussion you had with my colleague about public service and serving the nation. 52:05 Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): We had in World War II, two years, essentially from September 1st, 1939 to December 7th, 1941, to prepare. And I doubt we'll have two years to prepare in this environment. Eric Edelman: President Putin, in some ways, has done us a bit of a favor by having invaded Ukraine and exposed, as a result, some of the limitations of US defense industrial production, and shown that it's grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions that the US military and our allies and partners need today, let alone given the demands of a potential future conflict, which might be even more taxing. Jane Harman: I remember being a member of the Defense Policy Board when Jim Mattis was Secretary of Defense, and his piece of advice to us was, let's do everything we can to keep Russia and China apart. Well, oops, that has not happened. And there is this close friendship and collaboration between them. You asked how is it manifested? Well, we see it most at the moment in Ukraine, where Russia was the aggressor violating international law and invading Ukraine, and China is a huge help to Russia in evading our sanctions by buying Russian gas and by its efforts to ship into China material for the war. And then you add in, as you mentioned, Iran and North Korea, which are suppliers of drones and other lethal material to Russia. And this unholy alliance, or I think you call it Alliance of Aggression, is extremely dangerous. Let's remember that both North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is at breakout for nuclear weapons, and the other two countries are nuclear countries. And where this goes is, it seems to me, terrifying. And that is, again, why we need to leverage all elements of national power to make sure we deter these countries from acting against us. Eric Edelman: Ukraine offered to give up, and I was involved in some of the diplomacy of this back in the nineties, the nuclear weapons that were left on its territory after the end of the Soviet Union. As a result of that, Ukraine gave them up, but in exchange for assurances from the United States, Russia, Great Britain and France, that its territorial integrity would be recognized along the borderlines that existed before the 2014 seizure of Crimea by Putin, which was a violation of those undertakings. If our assurances in the non-proliferation realm in this instance are shown to be hollow, it will raise questions in the minds of all of our allies about the assurances we've given them, our extended deterrent assurances, whether it's for our allies in Europe, part of our multilateral NATO alliance, or our bilateral allies in East Asia, or our partners, parts of special relationships we've developed in Middle East with Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt and others. So the whole fabric, frankly, of the international order is at risk here, depending on the outcome in Ukraine. And to your point, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, the lesson that Xi Jinping is likely to draw is that he too can be successful in Taiwan or in the East China Sea or the South China Sea. Eric Edelman: Nuclear deterrence, Senator Fisher, is the fundamental on which everything else is built in terms of our national security. It's operating every day. It's not visible to American citizens, but the fact of our nuclear deterrent force, all three legs of the triad being available is the most powerful deterrent that we have to conflict. It's not sufficient, but it is the absolute basis, and we really, I think, agreed with the conclusion our colleagues on the Strategic Posture Commission reached, which is that we have to move forward with alacrity on all the elements of modernization of the nuclear triad. That's the GBSD Sentinel Program, that is the B-21, that is the Ohio replacement class. All of those things have to be accomplished and there are problems. One of the reasons we highlighted education is that some of the problems that GBSD are running into have to do with lack of skilled workers to be able to pour the kind of special reinforced concrete that you need for the new silos for missiles, the new control systems for missiles. We lack welders in the submarine industrial base, as Senator Wicker knows well. So there's a lot that has to be done across the board in order to move forward with nuclear modernization, but it is absolutely fundamental to our ability to deter aggression against our allies and of course against the homeland. Eric Edelman: The force right now is too small, and so we have to grow the force, and that's in the face of the recruiting challenges that we've highlighted in the report that the Army in particular, but also the Navy and the Air Force have faced. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And I'm going to interrupt you. Please. Why is it too small? Can you explain in this setting the threats that we are facing when we look at the adversaries that we face and how that has changed over the last decade? Eric Edelman: It's too small, in part because the Department was sizing itself for one conflict. But if you have to be present in three theaters, as we are now, we've got conflicts in two theaters now, if we have a third conflict in the third theater, it's going to require a lot more forces. People talk, for instance, about the Indo-Pacific being largely a Navy and Air Force fight. That's correct, but the logistics that support the Navy and the Air Force will largely be manned by the Army. And so we have to have an Army that is sufficiently large that it can operate in all of these places, potentially simultaneously, because honestly, it is very hard to imagine today a conflict in the Indo-Pacific that doesn't become a global conflict very quickly. Someone asked earlier in the hearing about cooperation between Russia and China. The last time I testified before this committee was two years ago about the so-called "Three Body Problem," Russia and China being both nuclear peers of the United States. And one of the criticisms that was leveled at my colleague, Frank Miller and me, was that, well, there's no evidence that Russia and China are collaborating in the nuclear area. Well, we just saw them flying strategic bombers together up near Alaska, so I don't know what more evidence you want that they're beginning to collaborate in that strategic area. Eric Edelman: If we got into some kind of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, whether it be over Taiwan or the South China Sea or East China Sea, what might Russia do? One thing that comes to mind is take advantage of the separatist movement in Moldova to move on Moldova, a country that's trying to move closer to the European Union and to the West, which would then precipitate additional conflict in Europe, or take advantage of the ethnic Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic states, say Latvia, to initiate a conflict there. How would we manage that? When you raise that question with Department [of Defense] leaders, they basically say, well, that — to go back to the chairman's point earlier — well that would be sort of like World War II or would require national mobilization, and that's correct, but we haven't really taken the next steps to really focus on what that and what a protracted conflict would actually look like. We're optimized to fight very short wars. 1:21:00 Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): There are five different domains in which our country will be attacked in the future. Air, land, and sea, most people would understand, but space and cyberspace are the new domains, which will precede any attack on the first three. Jane Harman: On cyber, it's a huge threat and I don't think we minimize it in any way. One of the things we might anticipate, for example, is if China decides to annex Taiwan, or whatever euphemism they might use, they might engage in a major cyber attack here first, for which we are under-prepared, a cyber attack of our infrastructure. When I was in Congress, I represented the Port of Los Angeles, which with the Port of Long Beach is the largest container port complex in the country. 50% of our container traffic enters and exits through those ports. There are cranes on the port to move the cargo, and those cranes have Chinese technology. So guess what? Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): All of which are subject to the possibilities of cyber attack. Jane Harman: Absolutely. We should anticipate that our ports could go down. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): Throughout our entire society, we find that to be the case though. Jane Harman: I'm agreeing with you and this is devastating. Does the American public understand this? No. Jane Harman: You also mentioned space. Again, something I know something about, since I used to call my district the aerospace center of the universe, where most of our intelligence satellites were made. We are more dependent on space as a country and more vulnerable in space because of that dependency than any other country. Shoring up space, which is one of the threats we address, is absolutely crucial. And it's not just military space, but commercial space. You talked about communication. A lot of how we communicate is through commercial space and think how inconvenienced the public would be if all of a sudden their little devices, which we're all dependent on, didn't work. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL): What's hurting us too is a lot of our government schools, I call 'em government schools because I went in thousands of them while I was coaching, recruiting, and the problem we have is hate that's being taught in a lot of our government schools, towards our country. Why would any young man or woman want to fight for a country that they don't believe in, that they're being taught to hate? It's absolutely amazing to me the direction this country is going. So is there any agreement there, Representative Harman? Jane Harman: There is agreement there. I think hate on both sides is totally destructive. I think the absence of civics education and the absence of institutions that help people understand what patriotism means. We had a conversation about national service, which might be a way to get all of our youth back together. I mean, this country sadly, is in a point where many people say our biggest enemy is us fighting each other. 1:33:35 Jane Harman: One of the problems is the kind of deployments the military does every two years. Moving somewhere where in many cases the spouse works and having to change his or her job every two years is very burdensome. It's also hard on kids, and so that could change. 1:36:20 Eric Edelman: The BRICS was actually kind of an invention of Goldman Sachs. It's not really a serious military organization. Jane Harman: But I think that Congress is somewhat complicit in the way the budget process doesn't work, and this insistence on requirements and oversight rather than on what is the problem set we are solving for, which is how the tech sector thinks. I've been making a comment about DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit, that was set up by the late Secretary Ash Carter, that maybe we should outsource the Pentagon to DIU, which is ably headed by someone named Doug Beck, who had 11 years experience in the private sector, because they know how to think about this. I couldn't agree with you more. The budget of DIU is $1 billion out of $850 billion. Doug Beck says he can leverage that. Sen. Angus King (I-ME): It's technologies that win wars, new technology, right? Jane Harman: I'm in violent agreement with you. He says he can leverage that into $50 billion of commercial investment, but that's still a pittance compared to the kind of change we need to undergo. Not just at the Pentagon, but at the Pentagon lashed up with other government agencies, with the tech sector, and with partners and allies. That is our point about all elements of national power, which will win the next war. 1:42:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): Ambassador Edelman, you spoke with Senator Fischer about the multiple theater force construct. Basically the kind of threats we're planning for, and there's a time when this nation planned to fight two major wars at a time, and I think now we're down to a force that can fight one conflict and protect our homeland, and hopefully scare bad guys everywhere else around the world and not starting war. Is that right? Eric Edelman: That is correct. That's what the 2022 NDS describes. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): So that's what our national Defense Strategy says. Is the current force even capable of doing that, in your opinion? Putting aside what it should be capable of doing, which I'll come to momentarily. Can it even do that? Eric Edelman: I think there are very serious questions about whether the force in being could actually execute the strategy. Jane Harman: The word pivot probably should be retired. I don't think we can leave anywhere. I think we have to have an understanding of the threats against us, not just against regions, everywhere. The whole idea of this multiple force construct is flexibility and having an adequate deterrence so we don't engage in more wars. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): In your report you talked about the current force structure that we have, and I think you had identified that the Marines are only ones meeting that. We agree with that. What you failed to do is basically identify why we have not, or why you all did not, take up women being in selective service or joining selective service, because women make up 74% of the healthcare and education industry, 52% of financial activities. They're a tremendously strong force. And there's a lot of women I don't want to go up against. I can tell you that in so many ways. I guess my question is simple. Does the commission support women registering for selective service? Jane Harman: Well, I'll speak for myself. I do. I think that women are, a majority of our population, a majority of the talent pool, many of the most talented women serve on this committee. So yes, they should be. We should be. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): I'll make it clear that what we talked about does not require women to participate in military draft. Jane Harman: I understand. It's registering. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Yeah, registering, that's all. Jane Harman: And my answer to that is yes. Eric Edelman: Our view was that you have to be able to deter and potentially defeat adversaries in all three of the main theaters that we have been engaged in since the end of the Second World War, and which we repeatedly engaged in. I mean, there's been no shortage of efforts to try and extricate the United States from the Middle East. The last NDS in 2018 said we should be willing to run risk in the Middle East. I think on October 7th we got a sense, and then again on April 13th, of what running additional risk means in the Middle East. So it's our view that we have to be able to manage to do all of those things. Eric Edelman: The homeland, if there's a conflict, is not going to be a sanctuary anymore. And the first attacks will likely be in the cyber domain, and they will be incredibly disabling for our society, but also for the department. But getting all of the agencies of government that would have a role in all this, because it goes beyond just DoD, it goes beyond just DHS, I mean, it goes to the Department of Transportation, it goes to Commerce. I mean, it's an unbelievably complex issue. And we're only now wrapping our minds around it and it needs a lot more work and attention from the department. Jane Harman: The public is essentially clueless about the massive cyber attacks that could be launched any day by our adversaries, not just nation states, but rogue actors as well. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD297: The Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump

27 juli 2024 | 81 min

When Congress returned to work after the Republican National Convention, the House held three hearings investigating the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. In this episode, hear for yourself the facts presented by the Director of the Secret Service, the Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner, and the FBI Director during their 15 hours of testimony. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Cheatle’s Failures Rep. James Comer and Rep. Jamie Raskin. July 22, 2024. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Julia Reinstein et al. July 16, 2024. ABC News. Would-be Assassin Emily Cochrane et al. July 19, 2024. The New York Times. Bernd Debusmann et al. July 19, 2024. BBC. Gaza Death Toll Rasha Khatib. July 20, 2024. The Lancet, Volume 404, Issue 10449. Audio Sources July 24, 2024 House Committee on the Judiciary Witnesses: Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Clips Time stamps correspond to C-SPAN version 31:20 Christopher Wray: I'm told that the father purchased the firearm in 2013, so quite a while ago, and then he sold it to his son in October of 2023. 43:05 Christopher Wray: The reason why I've talked about how we think he got on the roof is that's based our evidence response to forensic analysis. Without getting into all the details, footprints, fingerprints, et cetera, that we can see how he got on. But we don't have an eyewitness at the moment who saw him climbing up. 43:25 Christopher Wray: A few minutes before the shooting, local law enforcement saw him on the roof. Again, no weapon identified at that point. A few seconds before the shooting is when the law enforcement officer that I've talked about already, the one who was assisted by another officer who saw up on the roof, saw the shooter in a prone shooting position with the gun. He turns… Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL): How long did that happen before? Christopher Wray: That sighting, that is the first time, to my knowledge, the first time anybody from law enforcement saw him with a weapon. That is seconds before he shot at President Trump. July 24, 2024 House Committee on the Judiciary Witnesses: Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Clips Time stamps correspond to C-SPAN version 25:30 Christopher Wray: We have recovered eight cartridges on the roof. 28:05 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Have you developed any evidence to so suggest that there are any accomplices or cooperators or assisters? Christopher Wray: Not at this time, but again, the investigation is ongoing. 36:10 Christopher Wray: So we have recovered a drone that the shooter appears to have used. It's being exploited and analyzed by the FBI lab. The drone was recovered in his vehicle, so at the time of the shooting, the drone was in his vehicle with the controller. In addition, our investigation has uncovered -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Do you know what time of day he flew it and if he flew it on the day of the shooting? Christopher Wray: So in addition, it appears that around 3:50-4:00PM, in that window, on the day of the shooting, that the shooter was flying the drone around the area. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Two hours before? Christopher Wray: I want to be clear about when I say the area, not over the stage and that part of the area itself, but I would say about 200 yards, give or take, away from that, we think, but we do not know. So again, this is one of these things that's qualified because of our ongoing review, that he was live streaming, viewing the footage from that. Again, about 11 minutes and around the 3:50-4:00 PM range. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Two hours before, he's flying a drone in the vicinity of the rally. Christopher Wray: About 200 yards away, yes. 37:25 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): What about the bombs that we've heard about in the shooter's car? Christopher Wray: So again, the FBI lab is exploiting those explosive devices. We've recovered three devices, two in his vehicle and one back in his residence. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Are these what your experts would call sophisticated operations? I dunno. That's what I've been told by people who have some understanding of this area. Christopher Wray: Yeah, I think we've seen more sophisticated and less, I would say these are relatively, again, keyword relatively, crude devices themselves, but they did have the ability to be detonated remotely. And so to that point, in addition to the two devices that we recovered out of his vehicle, there were receivers for those two explosive devices with the devices. And then on the shooter himself, when he was killed by law enforcement, he had a transmitter with him. Now, I do want to add one important point here. At the moment, it looks to us, again, ongoing review, and I can't say that too many times, at the moment, it looks like because of the off position on the receivers, that if he had tried to detonate those devices from the roof, it would not have worked. But that doesn't mean the explosives weren't dangerous. 1:23:00 Christopher Wray: I think it's fair to say that we do not yet have a clear picture of his motive. 1:25:30 Christopher Wray: We located a number of firearms associated with the shooter and his family. I think it was a total of, I think 14 in the house. The weapon that he used for the attempted assassination was an AR-style rifle that was purchased legally that he, its my understanding, acquired, I think bought actually from his father, who was the one who originally bought it, again, legally. 1:46:20 Christopher Wray: So we do know that he purchased a ladder. I think if I recall correctly, it was about a five foot tall type of ladder. But importantly, we did not find the ladder at the scene. So it's not clear that he used the ladder to get on top of the roof. 1:52:40 Christopher Wray: The weapon had a collapsible stock, which could explain why it might've been less easy for people to observe, because one of the things that we're finding is people have observed him. The first people to observe him with the weapon were when he was already on the roof, and we haven't yet found anybody with firsthand observation of him with the weapon walking around beforehand. 1:54:00 Christopher Wray: There were no pictures or videos on the drone of the day of the rally, for example. But we have been able to reverse engineer the flight path of the drone from the day of the rally, and that's how we know that for about 11 minutes from, I think it's around 3:50 PM to 4:00 PM, somewhere in that range, he was flying the drone and we have the flight path, and it's about 200 yards away from where former President Trump would ultimately be speaking. And so that would've primarily given him a vantage point. I'm trying to think how to describe this. If the former President's podium is that way, the drone would be over here looking, say 200 yards again, off this way, looking back, so it would've shown the shooter -- we think, again, we're still doing more work on this. I really want to qualify what I'm saying, but I'm trying to be transparent and lean in here -- we think it would've shown him kind of what would've been behind him. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): When you say behind him, behind the shooter. Christopher Wray: Correct. In other words, almost like giving him a rear view mirror of the scene behind him, except again, he wasn't flying it overhead while he was later back for the assassination. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): But he would've had, with the drone, he would've been able to also assess, because the stage, I assume, was already set, he'd be able to assess that angle with rooftop as well, forward and backward, I assume. Christopher Wray: Well, certainly going towards the podium, again, we're still trying to figure out exactly what he saw, because having to, in effect, because there's no recording of what he saw during those 11 minutes, our hypothesis at this point, the experts think he would've been live streaming it, and so we're trying to, in effect say, okay, well this was the flight pattern. Given these capabilities of the drone, what would you have seen? What could you have seen for those 11 minutes? And again, it wasn't over the stage or kind of the hub of the rally. It was about 200 yards away, but it looks like it would've been looking, let's say, the length of a football field or so more towards the podium. 1:56:25 Christopher Wray: So again, with the caveat that we're continued to do work on it, we believe that the first time he traveled to the grounds was I think a week before and he spent roughly 20 minutes there. Then he went to the grounds again on the morning of the event. It appears for about 70 minutes, I think. But again, I qualify that. I'd have to go back and look to be sure of that part. And then he came back in the afternoon. So that would be, I guess a third time for good. But that included things like this drone activity we just talked about. 1:58:10 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Have you been able to gain access to the shooter's electronic communications, social media, and -- with the caveats that you mentioned that the investigation is still early -- have you been able to make any deductions or are there any indications of the shooter's motivation from those electronic holdings? Christopher Wray: So in terms of our ability to access it, we have been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic devices, digital devices, but not all of them yet. And then within his various accounts, we've been able to get access to some of them, but some of them we're still waiting on. Some of them we may never get access to because of the encryption issue. It presents an increasingly vexing barrier for law enforcement, not just the FBI, but for law enforcement all over the country. 1:59:30 Christopher Wray: It does appear fairly clear that he was interested in public figures kind of more broadly, and I think this is important, that starting somewhere around July 6th or so, he became very focused on former President Trump, on this rally. And so one of the things that I can share here today that has not been shared yet is that we've just in the last couple of days, found that from our review, to your point about devices, analysis of a laptop, that the investigation ties to the shooter reveals that on July 6th he did a Google search for "how far away was Oswald from Kennedy." And so that search obviously is significant in terms of his state of mind. That is the same day that it appears that he registered for the Butler rally. 2:15:30 Christopher Wray: So I know it was a Secret Service counter sniper who took the shot that eliminated the shooter. 2:15:50 Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): You mentioned that the would-be assassin bought a five foot ladder, you have credit card evidence of that. But it looks like on the scene there was a larger ladder that he might've used. Do you know which ladder he used to get to the roof? And do you have possession of that five foot ladder and the other ladder? And do you know how the taller ladder got to the scene? Christopher Wray: So this whole business about the ladder is something we're drilling into more. We do have possession of the five foot ladder that he purchased close in time to his attempted assassination that we've traced the purchase of that ladder from a receipt, a bloodied receipt that he had on him at the time his body was recovered on the roof. We do not yet know for sure how exactly he got up on the roof. We're looking at various forensic pieces to try to kind of piece that together. So more to come on that. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): Do you know where the five foot ladder was found or retrieved? Was it near the roof or was it still in his vehicle? Christopher Wray: Neither. I don't have it in front of me, but I know that it was not, I know that it was not on scene and I know that it was not in his vehicle. 2:17:55 Christopher Wray: From everything we've seen, which is consistent with what we've learned in interviews, a lot of people describe him as a loner. That does kind of fit with what we're seeing in his devices. His list of contacts, for example, is very short compared to what you would normally see from most people. So it doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interaction between him, face-to-face or digital, with a lot of people. 3:00:50 Christopher Wray: We now believe that the subject climbed onto the roof using some mechanical equipment on the ground and vertical piping on the side of the AGR building. In other words, we do not believe he used a ladder to get up there. 3:07:25 Christopher Wray: He was a fairly, avid might be a little strong, but a fairly avid shooting hobbyist, and so he belonged to different clubs and went to certain ranges and that kind of thing. We do believe, based on what we've seen so far, that he went to a shooting range the day before and that he shot an AR-style rifle at that range the day before. I am not sure we know for sure that it's the weapon that he used, but I think we assessed that it probably is. July 23, 2024 House Committee on Homeland Security Witnesses: Colonel Christopher L. Paris, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police Patrick Yoes, National President, Fraternal Order of Police Clips Time stamps correspond to YouTube version 23:35 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Colonel Christopher Paris serves as the commissioner for the Pennsylvania State Police. In this role, he exercises command, administrative and fiscal authority over the Pennsylvania State Police, the 10th largest police agency in the United States. Commissioner Paris has served in the Pennsylvania State Police since his enlistment in 1999. 23:55 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Mr. Patrick Yoes currently serves as the president National Fraternal Order of Police. In this role, Mr. Yoes leads the order and its more than 367,000 law enforcement members in representing police officers in the profession. Prior to taking his current role, Mr. Yoes served an impressive 36 years as an active law enforcement officer. 25:45 Col. Christopher L. Paris: Prior to the shooting, our role was to support the Secret Service with personnel and assets that they requested. Our operation plan, completed to fulfill this responsibility consisted of 32 members, and we had two main responsibilities, a motorcade operation for the transportation with the Secret Service of former President Trump, as well as manning and staffing security posts inside the secure area of the Butler County Farm Show. Additionally, we provided two marked cars with uniformed troopers outside of the secure perimeter to provide roving duties, as the name implies, responding to incidents that may occur as a large gathering of people were moving to the venue. 1:22:10 Col. Christopher L. Paris: I would say from my experience and from state police operations to include this event as planned in our operations plan, we had integrated communications by having RPSP personnel in the Secret Service Command post. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): So your person was in there, in that command post on this event? Col. Christopher L. Paris: Yes, sir. 1:22:45 Col. Christopher L. Paris: There's a lot of talk about interoperability and communications. The state police, for example, operate our own statewide radio network, so we have the ability to, if we have an incident, a long protracted incident, for example, where we need to patch other agencies in, we have the capability to do that. However, Secret Service, for example, maintain some additional encrypted communications. So the best way to integrate unified command… Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Is physically present in the command site. Col. Christopher L. Paris: That would be our, yeah. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): That's how the Army does it and the military Col. Christopher L. Paris: I would expect our commanders to have personnel in there so that we could have radio communication, as well as a redundancy in the operations plan with a telephonic backup. 1:25:30 Col. Christopher L. Paris: The final walkthrough occurred on the 11th. Present at that meeting were the two commanders that were tasked with both staffing the security checkpoints on the interior of the secure perimeter, as well as the commander who was going to be in charge of the motorcade. But in addition to that, a PSP area commander was on that walkthrough, holding the rank of Major. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Could you share a little bit of insight? I appreciate the timeline, but could you share a little bit specific to the AGR building? Col. Christopher L. Paris: So on that walkthrough, our area commander asked specifically who was responsible for the AGR building, and we were told that Butler ESU was responsible for that area by several Secret Service agents on that walkthrough. 1:26:35 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): The slope of the roof, would that have prevented a sniper from being up there? Col. Christopher L. Paris I don't believe so, sir. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Okay. 1:29:40 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): President Yoes, in your comments, you talked about the need for communication. You talked about FirstNet. We have federal, state, and local law enforcement at an event like what we're talking about in Butler, but in our conversation with some of the locals, not state police, but the sheriff's department and the chief of police in Butler yesterday, those individuals did not have communication with state police or Secret Service. Would that, in your professional opinion, be a vulnerability for managing an event like this? Patrick Yoes: Well, I think we can go back to 9/11. When we identified at that time that the inoperability of different agencies to be able to communicate really was a hindrance. There's an infrastructure in place now to address these inoperabilities, but at the same time, they're not always utilized in every event. I do not have any direct knowledge whether that was the issue here, but I can tell you it is a common issue in law enforcement and an ability for our agencies not to be able to communicate, not that the technology is not necessarily there, it's because that they're not always incorporated. 1:31:10 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Yeah, we passed legislation mandating, obviously, FirstNet interoperability, and we tied funding to make sure that that happens. But here we are looking at this situation and we picked up some valuable information that we are still not where we need to be on that. 1:32:25 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Butler, Pennsylvania has no permitting process for events of that size, so you can announce it and hold it, and local government doesn't really have anything to do with it. And we were assured by local government that they would try to fix that. They said, we have to be more involved in events of this size, so that if this was not the best venue, then that permitting could have gotten engaged and suggested an alternate venue. 1:42:25 Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): How many rounds did the shooter fire before he was killed? Do you know? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I believe that the number is eight casings have been recovered. 1:55:05 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Colonel Paris, are you aware whether any law enforcement officer or officers was or were posted in the second floor window of the AGR building? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I am aware, yes, sir. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): And what is the answer? Col. Christopher L. Paris: To my knowledge, there were two posted there from Butler ESU. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): And you said Butler ESU. What does the acronym ESU stand for? Col. Christopher L. Paris: Emergency Services Unit. It's a team that's comprised of multiple agencies that pool resources on a county or several county basis in order to enhance capabilities and training and be able to respond. Basically a mutual aid agreement is my understanding of it. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Is it sort of like a SWAT team? Col. Christopher L. Paris They are trained in SWAT tactics, to my knowledge, yes. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): So how many ESU officers were posted to that second floor window? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I am aware that two were in the building, but again, I have not seen the Secret Service operations plan. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Do you know, you say in the building, were they in a window? A window out onto the scene? Col. Christopher L. Paris: From briefings that I have been given, I was told they were in a window, yes, sir. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Did they remain on Post? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I was told that at a certain point they began searching along with other local officers in the immediacy after Crooks had been identified as suspicious by them. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): By them? Col. Christopher L. Paris: My understanding is that they identified Crooks for not matriculating. To my knowledge, Crooks never made it through the Secure Perimeter into the venue space itself. He was identified by those members as suspicious in part because of that. And then at some point he produced the range finder, which heightened that. 1:57:30 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Was it from this vantage point that those ESU officers spotted Crooks? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I don't know that particular window, but my understanding is from a second story window is where he was initially spotted. 1:57:45 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): So are you then saying that, to your knowledge, those ESU officers left the location where they could look out the window to go in search of this person? Col. Christopher L. Paris: That is my understanding. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): So sometime between the time he was spotted on the ground and identified as someone suspicious until the shooting, they had left that post to go look for him. Is that what you're saying? Col. Christopher L. Paris: My understanding is yes. Along with other municipal officers that responded to that area. And that's based on interviews that we've conducted. And I want to be very clear that I don't want to establish a timeline minute by minute because we don't have that yet. 2:35:40 Col. Christopher L. Paris: So this goes to my earlier qualifier about the timeline, but my understanding of the sequence of events is that he was determined to be suspicious as a result of behavior that he was exhibiting, milling around that area in front of the AGR building. There was a text thread that was going, I've been briefed, between the ESU members. They identified, they took a photo of him at some point. When he utilized the rangefinder, the suspicion was heightened. So I know at a certain point in the command post, a member of PSP received a phone call and a text message from members of ESU, and I know from an interview that that was immediately relayed in the command post to the Secret Service. 2:36:35 Col. Christopher L. Paris: When the PSP member received that information and verbally turned right around, gave it to the Secret Service, our member was provided with a number to which the picture that had been taken by the Butler ESU members, or that was on that group thread, to which that should be sent. Our member did that, and our understanding was that was some element of the Secret Service. 2:37:50 Col. Christopher L. Paris: But at that point, just to be clear, he was determined to be suspicious. There was no information that he possessed a weapon. He was outside of that building where the ESU was posted. They were being vigilant. It's, I think, relevant that there were other people at the venue who were suspicious and reported likewise, in a close temporal nexus to that as well. 2:38:35 Col. Christopher L. Paris: I believe, again, I'll defer to when the President came out. I know that that was probably 20 to 25 minutes before 18:11 hours and steps were taken by the municipal officers over in that area, they were actively looking for Crooks. You saw the building yesterday. That's a pretty wide footprint. They began looking for him. There were scores of people making their way across that facility. Again, just for some context, there were over a hundred people that day requiring medical attention due to the heat. There was a missing 6-year-old. This individual was deemed to be suspicious because he was walking around and not moving into the venue. The rangefinder obviously heightened that, and they were attempting to locate him as people were moving across that space, who were attending the event, to the secure perimeter. 2:41:10 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): You said that many of your officers, or Butler ESU officers, were looking for Crooks. That was after that photograph was relayed to the Secret Service? Col. Christopher L. Paris: My understanding is it was after the photo was relayed to our trooper in the command post. And yes, Crooks was in that area around the building. My understanding is two additional municipal officers who were on a different post responded to that area and they began actively looking for Crooks. They circumscribed the building to try and locate him. It became apparent at some point that he was up on the roof. Those two municipal officers who responded then, to their credit, actively, once they realized that he was on the roof, one boosted the other one up hanging from the ledge of the roof. By the time that officer was boosted up on top of the roof, Crooks was on it almost in that final position that you saw. He had the AR out and he pointed it at the municipal officer who was suspended from the roof, who was not in a position, feet dangling at that point, to draw a weapon or continue hoisting himself back up on the roof. He drops back down from the roof, and at this point, I believe, that's when the video that's been widely circulated with people filming Crooks up on the roof saying there's somebody up on the roof. There were other law enforcement around the building running, but their vantage point on the ground did not lend a clear line of sight to where Crooks was at the top of that building. 2:44:35 Col. Christopher L. Paris: The hoisting up of the officer occurred probably no more -- again, I'm going to give you a time, but I want to just put it in context -- Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) We understand it's not specific. Col. Christopher L. Paris: -- of a sequence of events. I would say at most two and a half to three minutes before that first shot rang out. 2:45:00 Col. Christopher L. Paris: The municipal officer saw Crooks. Crooks saw him, and Crooks turned and leveled the gun at him in a position tactically of extreme disadvantage, suspended in the air with your legs dangling after somebody had boosted you up. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): And he let go, right? Col. Christopher L. Paris: He let go and he fell back down. 2:48:30 Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): Now emergency services noticed Thomas Crooks on the roof -- this is the timeline that we have -- took a picture and reported it. Who did they send that picture to? Col. Christopher L. Paris: Just to be clear, they were posted in the AGR building and took a picture of him. That's what you're referring to. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): Yes, who did they send the picture to? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I only know from interviews what I can confirm to my knowledge and belief here today, that a member of Pennsylvania State Police inside of the command post received that information telephonically and by text, relayed it to the Secret Service, and then was given a number to follow up on and that was based, again, heightened suspicion. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA): How did they relay it to Secret Service? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I believe that they verbally turned and said in the command post, this is information that I just received. And then in follow up to that, as directed from the interview that I was briefed on, that was forwarded by text as requested by the Secret Service. 2:56:10 Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY): Were there other folks who were also in the crowd identified as suspicious by law enforcement? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I have been briefed that yes, there were multiple individuals, which would be consistent with normal operations for a detail like this, that are identified as suspicious. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY): Can we take that as a single digit number of other folks? Col. Christopher L. Paris: The number that I was briefed on was single digit, but I can't say definitively that I was -- Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY): What number were you briefed on, Colonel? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I believe I was briefed on an additional three individuals. 3:03:25 Col. Christopher L. Paris: I'm aware of three radio systems in operation: PSP's, the Secret Service, and Butler County's. Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX): All communicating on different channels. Col. Christopher L. Paris: Technically, yes, but, I can only speak from PSP, our integration occurs by us having somebody inside of the Secret Service Command post. Again, for an incident of this magnitude, in theory, the more people you have on the same channel, if there was a medical emergency or a lost 6-year-old and everybody keys up at once, it paralyzes your communication. 3:14:45 Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ): From the time that a law enforcement officer was hoisted up, was identified by the shooter, the shooter turns his rifle on him, how long between that encounter and the first shot? Col. Christopher L. Paris: So, I'm glad you asked me that question, Congressman. I'd like to clarify. So it was a matter of seconds. Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ): Alright, because I think earlier it might've been minutes. Col. Christopher L. Paris: Correct, and I appreciate you asking that question, you allowing me to clarify that on the record. When I assigned that number, which again, I don't want get locked into a timeline, of three minutes before, that's probably a total amount of time that he was on the roof. When the one local officer hoisted the other one up and subsequently falls, releases himself after being faced with that -- Rep. Rob Menendez (D-NJ): The shooter shuffles across the roof and takes his first shot -- Col. Christopher L. Paris: He's already, I believe, close to being in his final position there, and I'm told it's again, sequence of events, not a timeline based on the prior criteria laid out, but seconds after that is when the first shots rang out. 3:24:20 Patrick Yoes: There's no doubt when you look at how many people are involved in an operation like this, having everyone on one channel is difficult. But there are people within contained areas and their ability to be able to communicate as things change across platforms is crucial. In this case, we know that in seconds things unfolded and in seconds getting meaningful communication out to people who might be able to act on that communication is vital. So I think there's avenues here. I agree that not everyone should be on the same channel, but there are certain people within certain areas and perimeters that should be having communication or the ability to communicate a little more freer. 3:37:20 Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ): Now that you've had a chance to go back and look over it, what is the tallest structure on that site? Col. Christopher L. Paris: The water tower, sir. Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ): Absolutely. Colonel, do you know how far the water tower was from the roof where the shooter took his shots? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I do not. Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ): 160 yards, sir. Who made the decision, Colonel, not to put a counter sniper team on the tallest structure by far on the site with 360 degree surveillance? Do you have any idea? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I do not know, sir. Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ): Okay. We'd like to get that answer. 4:02:55 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Was Secret Service notified that they were leaving to go look for this guy and thus those eyes on top of the building gone? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I do not know. And the other thing that I do not know is where else Butler ESU sent that information. I have not been briefed on that. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Who told them to go look? Do you know if they were told to go look? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I do not know, sir. Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): We just know that they did go look. Col. Christopher L. Paris: Yes, sir. And like I said, a very concerted effort with all of those alcoves and all of those buildings was made. There were two additional officers who, again, I don't know the specifics of the timeline, I don't know the specifics of the logistics of how that information was relayed, but I'm briefed that they came and they made a very concerted effort to try and locate Crooks. 4:12:05 Col. Christopher L. Paris My understanding is the two officers that responded and one hoisted up, the second one were not part of Butler ESU. They were two separate municipal officers who were tasked with a different responsibility. I would speculate, as an example, to say a traffic post or… Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): Understood. Col. Christopher L. Paris: And they responded. I don't know, again, the specifics as to how they were alerted, but just to be clear, they were two separate. Yes, sir. 4:12:30 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): The Butler ESU officers who spotted Crooks, do I understand correctly, they spotted him from the second floor of the AGR building? Col. Christopher L. Paris: That is my understanding. Yes, sir. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Okay. Were they posted there in order to maintain Overwatch on the roof, or were they generally assigned roving responsibility to be in the vicinity of that building? Col. Christopher L. Paris: I can't answer that, and I would defer to the Secret Service. July 22, 2024 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Witnesses: Kimberly Cheatle, [then] Director, United States Secret Service Clips Time stamps correspond to YouTube version 19:45 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): A little over a week ago, Americans watched in horror as a shooter attempted to assassinate President Donald J. Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The gunman nearly succeeded. The bullet that struck President Trump's head was less than an inch from taking his life. President Trump survived, but one rallygoer, Corey Comparatore, tragically did not. Two others were seriously injured. It was a horrifying moment in American history. The horror was exceeded only by the bravery of the law enforcement agents who threw themselves in harm's way when shots were fired, the bravery of a crowd unwavering in its refusal to panic, and the bravery of a bloody President Trump refusing to run. 32:55 Kimberly Cheatle: Today we are joined by Kimberly Cheatle, who was sworn into office on September 17, 2022, as the Director of the United States Secret Service. Prior to her appointment, Director Cheatle was Senior Director of Global Security at PepsiCo. Before her role at Pepsi, she served 27 years in the Secret Service. 35:40 Kimberly Cheatle: The Secret Service's solemn mission is to protect our nation's leaders. On July 13th, we failed. As the Director of the United States Secret Service, I take full responsibility for any security lapse of our agency. We are fully cooperating with ongoing investigations. We must learn what happened, and I will move heaven and Earth to ensure that an incident like July 13th does not happen again. Let me state unequivocally, nothing I have said should be interpreted to place blame for this failure on our federal, state, or local law enforcement partners who supported the Secret Service in Butler. We could not do our job without them. 37:05 Kimberly Cheatle: I will be transparent as possible when I speak with you. Understanding, though, at times, that I may be limited in providing a thorough response in this open setting due to associated risks with sharing highly sensitive protective methodologies. 38:30 Kimberly Cheatle: The comprehensive advance process involves collaborative planning between our Secret service, the protectee's staff, and local law enforcement partners. The level of security provided for the former President increased well before the campaign and has been steadily increasing as threats evolve. The security plan included a full assessment of the Butler Farm Show grounds to identify security vulnerabilities and craft a security plan for the protectee, attendees, and the public. Immediately following the assassination attempt, I directed the activation of my crisis center. I assembled my executive team to begin surging more protective resources to the former President and to ensure the wellness of our people post-incident, all while securing an active crime scene. I immediately ordered a reevaluation of the Republican National Convention Security Plan, and I increased the security posture in the National Capitol Region for all permanent protectees and sites. At the same time, I initiated a Mission assurance investigation within our agency. 41:40 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Let's start with the building that the shooter used to shoot President Trump from. At any point Saturday, did the Secret Service have an agent on top of that roof? Kimberly Cheatle: Sir, as I'm sure you can imagine that we are just nine days out from this incident and there's still an ongoing investigation, and so I want to make sure that any information that we are providing to you is factual. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): You can't, okay. Can you answer why the Secret Service didn't place a single agent on the roof? Kimberly Cheatle: We are still looking into the advanced process and the decisions that were made. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Okay, okay. Wasn't that building within the perimeter that should be secured? Do we agree with that? Kimberly Cheatle: The building was outside of the perimeter on the day of the visit, but again, that is one of the things that during the investigation, we want to take a look at and determine whether or not other decisions should have been made. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): One of the things that you said, I believe in an interview, that there wasn't an agent on the roof because it was a sloped roof. Is that normal? And do you fear that that immediately creates an opportunity for future would-be assassins to look for a slanted roof? I mean, this is a huge question that every American has. Why wasn't a Secret Service agent on the roof? And there have been reports that agents were supposed to be on the roof, but it was hot that day and they didn't want to be on the roof. Can you answer any of those questions, Director? Kimberly Cheatle: So I appreciate you asking me that question. Chairman. I should have been more clear in my answer. When I spoke about where we placed personnel in that interview, what I can tell you is that there was a plan in place to provide Overwatch, and we are still looking into responsibilities and who was going to provide Overwatch, but the Secret Service in general, not speaking specifically to this incident, when we are providing Overwatch, whether that be through counter snipers or other technology, prefer to have sterile rooftops. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Did the Secret Service use any drones for surveillance that day? Kimberly Cheatle: So again, I'm not going to get into specifics of that day in itself, but there are times during a security plan that the Secret Service does deploy an asset like a drone. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): There were reports that the shooter used a drone just a few hours before the rally start time. Is that accurate? Kimberly Cheatle: I have heard those same reports. And again, am waiting for the final report. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): If you can't answer the question, that's your answer. But can you answer this? Do you know, I'm not asking yes or no, but do you know if the shooter used a drone before the shooting? Kimberly Cheatle: That information has been passed to us from the FBI. Rep. James Comer (R-KY): How many Secret Service agents were assigned to President Trump on the day of the rally? Kimberly Cheatle: Again, I'm not going to get into the specifics of the numbers of personnel that we had there, but we feel that there was a sufficient number of agents assigned. 46:05 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Before July 13th, had the Trump detail requested additional resources? Kimberly Cheatle: What I can tell you is that for the event on July 13th, the assets that were requested for that day were given. 46:25 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): It's been reported that before former President Trump got up on the stage at around 6:00 PM on Saturday, July 13th, that the local police had identified and even photographed a man who was acting suspiciously. And this man, who turned out to be the gunman, had been flagged as a potential threat. Is that accurate? Kimberly Cheatle: What I can say is that the individual was identified as suspicious. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): So he was known to be suspicious before former President Trump took the stage. Kimberly Cheatle: That is the information I have received. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Why was he allowed to take the stage with a suspicious person having been identified in the crown? Kimberly Cheatle: So I appreciate the question, and I'd like to make two points. If the detail had been passed information that there was a threat, the detail would never have brought the former president out onto stage. That is what we do and that is who we are. We are charged with protecting all of our protectees. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): So you distinguish between someone who is suspicious and someone who's threatening. Is that right? Kimberly Cheatle: We do. There are a number of times at protective events where suspicious people are identified and those individuals have to be investigated and determined what is it that identifies that person as suspicious? 47:45 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Did you deny a request for additional resources that had been made by the Trump campaign? Kimberly Cheatle: There were no assets denied for that event in Butler on the 13th. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): I see. So you're saying there were requests made for additional assistance for other specific events, rather than for the campaign as a whole. Is that right? Kimberly Cheatle: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): You seem to say that there were not additional resources requested for that event. And forgive me for being unfamiliar with this. Is it requested event-by-event or is it requested just in general for the campaign? Kimberly Cheatle: So if I can explain the advance process. When an event or an venue is identified by, in this case, campaign staff, then the campaign staff works together with Secret Service agents who go out and conduct an advance. Generally that is a five day time period where those discussions are had about what the perimeter is going to look like, what the size of the event is, what the venue is, and then from there there is a request made to mitigate potential risk and threat. And I'm saying that on that day, the requests that were pushed forward were granted. 49:00 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): So the Secret Service did not know that the gunman actually had a weapon before President Trump was allowed to get up on the stage. Kimberly Cheatle: To the best of our knowledge and the facts that we have at this point, that is correct. 49:50 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): It's been reported that the shooter was not carrying a driver's license or any form of identification. They had no idea who he was, but then he was quickly identified, I think within 30 minutes, by using the serial number on the AR-15 under a tracing system that is now controversial. Some people say we should get rid of it, some people want to keep it. But is that right, that the serial number was the key information which led to the identification of the shooter? Kimberly Cheatle: That is my understanding, sir. Yes. 52:50 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): How many times did you turn them down ahead of that? Kimberly Cheatle: I think that it is important to distinguish between what some people may view as a denial of an asset or a request -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Well, Mr. Guglielmi, your spokesperson, he said he acknowledged the Secret Service had turned down some requests. I'm asking how many. Kimberly Cheatle: A denial of a request does not equal a vulnerability. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Well, tell me what it is. Kimberly Cheatle: There are a number of ways that threats and risks can be mitigated with a number of different assets, whether that be through personnel, whether that be through technology or other resources. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Well tell the committee which it was. They asked for additional help in some form or another. You told them no. How many times did you tell them no? And what'd you tell them no to? Kimberly Cheatle: Again, I cannot speak to specific incidents, but I can tell you in general terms the Secret Service is judicious with their resources based on -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): What does some requests mean? How many times? Requests is plural. So more than once they ask for additional help and you turned them down. What did they ask for and how many times did you turn them down? Pretty basic questions. Kimberly Cheatle: So again, without having all of the details in front of me, sir, what I can tell you is that there are times when -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): You didn't get briefed on how many times you turned down the Trump detail when they asked for additional help? Kimberly Cheatle: I'm sorry. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Didn't get briefed on that before you came to this hearing, knowing you were going to get asked that question? Kimberly Cheatle: What I can tell you is that in generic terms, when details make a request, there are times that there are alternate ways to cover off on that threat. 1:04:05 Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Director Cheatle, have you read the intelligence of the generalized threat to Donald Trump by Iran as a result of their desire to retaliate for the killing of Soleimani? Kimberly Cheatle: I have. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Have you read or been briefed about the intelligence of the specific recent threat to Donald Trump from Iran? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes, I have. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Director Wray, when we were getting our briefing, indicated that he thought the threat assessment should have included this threat from Iran. Is it your testimony today that the threat assessment, since you've read this intelligence, was sufficient to protect him from this threat from Iran? Kimberly Cheatle: My testimony today is that the information that we had at the time was known, that -- Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Was it sufficient, Director Cheatle? Was it sufficient for the Iranian threat that you said you have read the intelligence briefings for? Kimberly Cheatle: That information was passed to -- Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Well, I'm not asking the bureaucratic issue of who did it get passed around to. Director Cheatle, was it sufficient for the specific and generalized threat to Donald Trump's life from Iran? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes, I do believe it was. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): Director Cheadle, is an Iranian assassin more capable than a 20-year-old? Kimberly Cheatle: Sir, I think we've acknowledged that there was gaps and a failure that day. 1:09:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): There were some reports that the individual had a rangefinder. That would certainly raise my suspicion. Did he have a rangefinder? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes, he did. But may I explain that at a number of our sites, especially when you're at outdoor venues, a rangefinder is not a prohibited item. It is sometimes an item that is brought in by individuals if you're going to be in the back. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): Did anybody confront him on that? Anybody ask him questions? What are you doing with the rangefinder? Anybody confront him on his presence where he was in proximity to the President? Kimberly Cheatle: So again, to my knowledge, I believe that that was the process that was taking place, was to locate the individual. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): Did they confront him? Did they go up to him? Did they talk to him? Kimberly Cheatle: I do not have those details at this time. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): Yeah, those are important details. 1:10:40 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): There was considerable delay in removing the president from the podium after the shooting began. He got shot in the ear, and it was still over a minute before he was removed from the stage. Meanwhile, this shooter had multiple clips. Several clips. He got off eight shots, and he had the capacity and the ability, if he was not neutralized, to basically mow down that whole Secret Service detachment as well as the President. What, from your own investigation, caused that delay under the circumstances. Kimberly Cheatle: What I can tell you is that when the agents identified that the shooting was taking place, in under three seconds they threw themselves on top of the -- Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): I understand that. There was heroism there. No question about it. No question about it. But protocol would indicate, and these are the opinions of various former Secret Service agents, people who have done this work in the past, that over a minute of exposure on that podium, with a shooter with a high-capacity weapon, who had already wounded the President and could have got off we don't know how many more rounds, and yet the President remained exposed even though he was joined in that exposure by the Secret Service in their heroic acts. I dunno if there's a good explanation for that. Kimberly Cheatle: Our personnel created a body bunker on top of the President, shielding him. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): I get that. Yeah. This was an AR 15 style weapon that would've made pretty quick work if he was determined and able to do so. 1:13:00 Kimberly Cheatle: As of today, the Secret Service has just over 8,000 employees. We continue to hire knowing that we need to ensure that we keep pace with a -- Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): What would be the full compliment that you're looking for? You've got 8,000 and how many would be a full complement for the service? Kimberly Cheatle: So we are still striving towards a number of 9,500 employees, approximately, in order to be able to meet future and emerging needs. 1:25:15 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): When this guy took the shots, he climbed a ladder to get on the roof, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: I'm unable to answer details of exactly how the individual accessed the roof at this time. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Do you know if he did use the ladder? Do you know when the ladder was placed there? Was the ladder there two days before? Just the night before? Do you have any information at all as to when the ladder got there? Kimberly Cheatle: I would like to be able to answer those questions. The FBI is still conducting an investigation. 1:25:20 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Were President Trump's normal agents, normally assigned to him, there that day? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): These were the same agents that were always there? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes, sir. The people that are assigned to his detail were working on that day. 1:30:45 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): As you know, the shooter began shooting at 6:11 PM Eastern on July 13th. NBC reported that at 5:51 PM, 20 minutes before the shooting began, the State Police informed the Secret Service of their concern. Now, the rally was not paused at that point, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: No. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And according to NBC, just two minutes later, at 5:53 PM, the Secret Service notified its snipers about the gunman. The rally wasn't paused at that point either, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: No. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Let me show you some video footage by rally goers. If you could play the video on the screen up here. This was taken two minutes before the shooting started. If you could turn up the volume. Rally goers: Right up here, he's on the roof. Right there, right on the roof. He's standing up now. Right on the roof. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Ma'am, that doesn't look like suspicious behavior. That looks like threatening behavior to me. And the rally wasn't paused at that point either, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: I can tell you, as I stated earlier, sir, that the moment that the shift surrounding the President were aware of an actual threat. -- Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): That's a threat, right there. The guy's on the roof and everybody's yelling at him and directing the officer's attention to him. The rally was not paused at that point, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: We are currently still combing through communications and when communications were passed. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Well, I can point you to this communication. It's two minutes before the shots started ringing out. Director Cheatle, yes or no, was there ever a moment where the Secret Service actually considered pausing the rally? Kimberly Cheatle: The Secret Service would've paused the rally had they known or -- Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): So the answer is no -- Kimberly Cheatle: -- been told there was an actual threat. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): The answer is no, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: I can speak to you in generalities. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): No, no. I don't want generalities. I want specifics. The answer is no, you did not consider pausing the rally, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: The people that are in charge of protecting the President on that day would never bring the former President out if there was a threat that had been identified. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Well, they did because we've now identified three points in the 20 minutes before the shooting that the threat emerged. Let me point you to something else, which is the building that the shooter was perched on, seen here. This building is called the AGR building. I'm sure that you're familiar with it. It's no more than 150 yards from the stage where Donald Trump stood. Yet the security perimeter was drawn such that the AGR building was placed outside of it. Director Cheatle, according to the Washington Post, the AR 15-style rifle used in the shooting had a range of 400 to 600 yards, and therefore the AGR building was clearly within rifle range of the stage, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): NBC News has reported that in the days before the rally, the Secret Service had identified the building as a vulnerability that required special attention, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: That's reporting from NBC? Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Yes. Kimberly Cheatle: So I am still looking into an active investigation. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): I know, but it's been nine days. I mean, you should know that, right? And yet, despite the fact that the AGR building was in rifle range of the stage, and it was flagged as a vulnerability, this building was put outside of the Secret Service's security perimeter. And I respectfully submit, the Secret Service must expand its security perimeter to account for the kinds of weapons that can be used outside the perimeter to endanger the protectees inside the perimeter. 1:34:50 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): First, you have not found evidence that the incident was a stage shooting, right? Kimberly Cheatle: Correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And you haven't found evidence that this was a result of a conspiracy of high ranking government officials, correct? Kimberly Cheatle: Correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And you have not found evidence that this incident was in fact directed or perpetrated by a foreign state or entity, right? Kimberly Cheatle: Not at this time. 1:58:15 Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX): Have any employees been disciplined for their role in the Butler, PA incident? Kimberly Cheatle: No, sir. Not at this time. I am asking those questions. 2:01:30 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): It's been nine days, every American wants these questions answered. Do you have a ballpark estimate of when what Mr. Sessions asked you would be able to answer, time wise? Kimberly Cheatle: I can tell you on our mission assurance internal investigation, we are targeting to have that completed within 60. 2:02:10 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): Director Cheatle, respectfully, what you had just laid out about 60 days. We are currently in the midst of an especially concentrated presidential campaign in the moment that is also paired with, of course, elections happening across the country that are happening in about a hundred days. So the notion of a report coming out in 60 days when the threat environment is so high in the United States, irrespective of party, is not acceptable. 2:03:55 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): Director Cheatle, is there a standard perimeter that the Secret Service establishes around an event, or are those perimeters independently determined per event and scenario? Kimberly Cheatle: There is no standard. Every event and every venue is different and treated as such. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): So each event has a different perimeter that is established depending on the logistics of that event. Now, you established earlier that the building upon which the shooter operated from was outside of that established perimeter, correct, for the Butler Pennsylvania event? Kimberly Cheatle: It was outside of our secure perimeter, yes. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): Now, that building was, I believe, 500....How far away was that building from the President? Kimberly Cheatle: It was approximately 200 yards. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): 200 yards. Now, the individual used an AR 15 in order to act out his assassination attempt, an AR 15 has a range of about 400 to 600 yards. My question is, why is the Secret Service Protective perimeter shorter than one of the most popular semi-automatic weapons in the United States? Kimberly Cheatle: There are a number of weapons out there with a number of ranges. Again, an advance was completed. The determination of the perimeter, I'm not going to speak to specifics, but there are a number of factors that are taken into account when we determine our perimeter. Some of it has to do with terrain, some of it has to do with buildings, some of it has to do with assets and resources that are available. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): And so what I'm hearing is that a perimeter was not established outdoors in an outdoor venue that would prevent an AR 15, which is one of the most common weapons used in mass shootings, from being able to be within the range of Secret Service protection. Kimberly Cheatle: A perimeter was established, and even though there were buildings that were outside of that perimeter, it wasn't just that building. There were a number of buildings in the area and there was Overwatch that was created to help mitigate some of those buildings. 2:32:45 Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM): I want to talk a little bit about the timeline. Now, here's what we know, and I know, Director, you were also on the call that we had a few days ago with the FBI and other law enforcement. So I respect that you are not able to share based on your testimony, some of the details that are currently being investigated, but I know you were on the call because I heard you on the call and you heard them too. So I'm going to lay out the timeline a little bit. On July 3rd, the rally was announced that it was going to be in Butler. On July 6th, three days later, we know that the shooter searched for dates for Trump and DNC events. On July 7th, so this is four days after the announcement, the shooter went to the site. He actually physically went to the site. On July 12th, the shooter went to a gun range where he and his dad regularly go and practiced shooting. And the next day, on July 13th, he went to the site again before the rally began. We know that he then went and searched online for a gun store, where he went and he purchased 50 rounds of ammunition, went home, got his father's AR, which was legally purchased, and returned to the venue at 5:00 PM that evening. This is more than an hour before Donald Trump actually took the stage that evening. Local law enforcement we're made aware that there was a suspicious man. In fact, at 5:20, local law enforcement flagged that he had a rangefinder and they radioed their concerns and sent around pictures of the individual. At 5:40, 20 minutes before local law enforcement actually identified the shooter and at 5:51 Secret Service was notified of the suspicious person by the state police. And one minute later, they distributed that information. That was before Donald Trump even took the stage. That was 11 minutes before he took the stage. So the Secret Service was aware that there was a suspicious person. At 6:03 he took the stage. At 6:09, rally goers, as was shown in the video, identified this gentleman climbing on the roof. At 6:11, three shots were heard, three rounds of shots, and of course the president and the other victims were shot. 2:48:35 Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): So given that there was an increased threat to President Trump's life, was he provided a full security compliment akin to what a sitting US President would receive? Kimberly Cheatle: He was provided a full compliment of security based on the threat assessment that we had and the venue. Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): That's not my question. My question is, if he'd been the sitting President, would he have had the same security he had on July 13th or would it have been beefed up? Kimberly Cheatle: There is a difference between the sitting President -- Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): So your answer is, he didn't. Kimberly Cheatle: -- and continuity of government and the responsibility that we had -- Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): So he did not, okay. There wasn't a full CAT team on site. There wasn't countersurveillance teams on site. 2:49:25 Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): Have you visited the site? Kimberly Cheatle: No, I have not. 2:50:30 Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): You said, do you remember, in an ABC interview you did, that you didn't have people on the roof of the AGR building because you were worried about safety because of the slope? Kimberly Cheatle: I recall that statement. Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX): Okay. Does the Secret Service have written policy you can share with us about sloped roofs? Kimberly Cheatle: No. 2:54:00 Kimberly Cheatle: So again, I think we're talking about the distinction between suspicious behavior and a threat, and at the time that this individual was identified, they were displaying suspicious behavior. I'm still waiting for interviews from the FBI to determine what it was that identified that individual as suspicious and what those behaviors were. 2:55:05 Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA): When there are so many teams that are collaborating, who takes the lead, and how is that determined? Kimberly Cheatle: The Secret Service is responsible for the security of the site and the coordination. Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA): And that was the case on July 13th? Kimberly Cheatle: Correct. 3:06:25 Kimberly Cheatle: I acknowledge that we are unaware at this time how the individual was able to access the roof. 3:06:35 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): Overwatch meaning from other counter-sniper or other higher points. Kimberly Cheatle: Correct. 3:06:50 Kimberly Cheatle: I don't have the timeline of how the individual accessed the roof, where they accessed the roof, or how long they were on the roof. 3:13:40 Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA): Was Crook's vehicle inside any of your perimeters? Kimberly Cheatle: No, it was not. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA): It was not. Was there a device located on Mr. Crook's body to detonate the vehicle? Kimberly Cheatle: That is the information that I have. 3:26:05 Kimberly Cheatle: The allocation of resources is decided based on the availability of personnel and their location and where they are, but there were sufficient resources that were given to the former President's event that day. Rep. William Timmons (R-SC): What did you just say? Did you just say there were sufficient resources? President Trump got shot. 3:32:05 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Were agents or officers inside the building? If so, what floor were they on? Kimberly Cheatle: We had local police officers inside the building. 3:59:30 Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI): Have you been in communication with the FBI? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes, I have. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI): With whom? Kimberly Cheatle: I speak with the Director and the Deputy Director. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI): Okay. And what have they shared with you about this investigation? So I'll give you an opportunity to answer again. Did they share with you how many shell casings were on the roof? Kimberly Cheatle: They have shared with me the -- Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI): Did they share with you how many shell casing were on the roof? Kimberly Cheatle: Yes. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI): Okay. How many were there? Kimberly Cheatle: I would refer to the FBI for their investigation. 4:13:20 Kimberly Cheatle: There are a number of other agencies that provide assistance to the Secret Service. During campaigns, we utilize personnel from the Department of Homeland Security, we utilize personnel from the Department of Defense, and we utilize local law enforcement partners. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Are you on the same radios? Do you provide the radios to all the assets that are taking part in protection of an event? Kimberly Cheatle: We provide radios to the personnel from the Department of Homeland Security that are assisting us. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): But not local law enforcement? Kimberly Cheatle: Local law enforcement is working on their own radios. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Are you on the same frequency? Kimberly Cheatle: We ensure that we have counterparts in the security room, and so the local law enforcement will place one of their personnel in the security room with our personnel so that we have interoperability communications. 4:14:25 Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Was Mr. Crooks observed at the AGR building prior to the shooting? Kimberly Cheatle: He was observed on the grounds outside of our perimeter prior to the shooting. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): At approximately what time was that? You don't have to give me the specific minute, but at approximately what time was that? Kimberly Cheatle: I believe it was about 45 minutes or so prior to [the shooting]. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Did the sniper team take a photo of Mr. Crooks? Kimberly Cheatle: The local team did, yes. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So it was a local team and not a Secret Service sniper. Kimberly Cheatle: That took the photo. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Okay. And did he relay that photo to Central Command? Kimberly Cheatle: Again, it's an active ongoing investigation, so I want to make sure that I'm factual with the route that that photo took and who that was disseminated to and when. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Did Mr. Crook's status go from a person that was under suspicion to a threat? When did that happen? And maybe not even a specific time, director Cheatle, maybe a certain event that happened that transformed him from a person of suspicion to a threat. When did that happen? Kimberly Cheatle: To the best of my knowledge, based on what I've been told thus far, it's approximately five minutes to where individuals relayed that there was an issue being worked at the three o'clock of the President. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): But it was before the shots were fired. Kimberly Cheatle: That is correct. But again, it was not phrased as a threat. It was just that something was being worked. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Yeah, but my question is, when did he transform from suspicion to threat? Because they're treated very differently. People can be suspicious, but they're not a threat until a certain point in time. So when did that happen? Kimberly Cheatle: I believe that it was seconds before the gunfire started. Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): Seconds. 4:18:40 Kimberly Cheatle: At this time we do not have that there were any other people engaged. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): So you believe he was acting alone? Kimberly Cheatle: I do. July 20, 2017 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications Witnesses: Curtis Brown, Deputy Secretary of Public Safety & Homeland Security, State of Virginia Dr. Damon Darsey, Professor, University of Mississippi Medical Center Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office Chris Sambar, Senior Vice President, AT&T FirstNet Michael Poth, CEO, FirstNet Clips 6:37 Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI): With FirstNet, firefighters will be able to download the blueprint of a burning building before they enter; a police officer arriving at a scene can run a background check or get pictures of a suspect by accessing a federal law enforcement database; most importantly, emergency personnel will not be competing with commercial users for bandwidth. They will have priority on this network, which will be built and hardened to public-safety specifications. It will have rugged eyes and competitive devices and specify public-safety applications. September 29, 2005 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Witnesses: David Boyd, Director, SAFECOM Program, Department of Homeland Security Department Timothy Roemer, Director, Center for National Policy; Member, 9/11 Commission Art Botterell, Emergency Information Consultant Clips 1:43:00 Timothy Roemer: Let me give you a couple examples of what the 9/11 Commission found as to some of these problems. We found all kinds of compelling instances of bravery and courage, people going into burning buildings and rescuing people. They might have rescued more. We might have saved more of the fire department chiefs, officers, police officers, emergency personnel, if they would have had public-radio spectrum to better communicate. At 9:59 in the morning on 9/11 four years ago, a general evacuation order was given to firefighters in the North Tower. The South Tower had collapsed. A place that held up to 25,000 people had been diminished to cement, steel, and ash. The people, then, in the North Tower, many of the chiefs in the lobby, didn’t even know that the other tower had collapsed, or else they might have been able to get more people out more quickly. We had comments from people saying such things as, we didn’t know it had collapsed. Somebody actually said, Mr. Chairman, that people watching TV had more information than we did in the lobby on 9/11 in the North Tower. People on TV in Florida or California knew more than our first responders on site in New York City. Music by Editing Production Assistance

BONUS: 2024 Republican National Convention

21 juli 2024 | 74 min

CD296: The Boeing Hearings

16 juli 2024 | 112 min

The Boeing 737 Max line of airplanes has been in the news often in the last 5 years after two fatal plane crashes and a door plug flew off a plane mid-flight, but Boeing’s recklessness extends far beyond the 737 Max. In this episode, hear testimony from whistleblowers, engineering experts, and government regulators during recent Congressional investigations into Boeing’s prioritization of its stock price over our safety. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Boeing’s Ongoing Problems Mike Bedigan. July 10, 2024. The Independent. July 10, 2024. Federal Aviation Administration. Noa Halff. July 9, 2024. The Daily Mail. March 8, 2024. NBC Bay Area. Tom Vacar and Zak Sos. March 7, 2024. KTVU FOX 2. NASA Starliner AP. June 29, 2024. NPR. Kenneth Chang. June 5, 2024. The New York Times. Kenneth Chang. March 6, 2020. The New York Times. Ties to US Government Defense Edward Carver. May 29, 2024. Truthout. Yeganeh Torbati and Aaron Gregg. November 25, 2020. The Washington Post. Lobbying OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Alaska Airlines Door Plug Blowout Simon Scarr et al. January 11, 2024. Reuters. FAA “Oversight” Marc Warren and Paul Alp. February 1, 2024. Adams and Reese LLP. Deferred Prosecution Agreement January 7, 2021. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. Boeing Guilty Plea David Koenig and Alanna Durkin Richer. July 9, 2024. AP News. Joel Rose. July 9, 2024. NPR. David Dayen. July 3, 2024. The American Prospect. Stock Buybacks Stock Buybacks History. Boeing Orders Boeing. John Barnett Mike Bedigan. June 18, 2024. The Independent. Theo Leggett. March 11, 2024. BBC News. May 4, 2021. United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judges. Staying Safe on Planes Peter Weber. January 8, 2015. The Week. Harold Maass. January 8, 2015. The Week. Charles W. Bryant. Nd. Mapquest Travel. McDonnell Douglas Merger James Surowiecki. January 15, 2024. The Atlantic. Natasha Frost. January 3, 2020. Quartz. Laws Audio Sources June 18, 2024 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Witnesses: David Calhoun, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Boeing Company June 13, 2024 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Witnesses: , Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration April 17, 2024 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Witnesses: Sam Salehpour, Current Quality Engineer, Boeing Ed Pierson, Executive Director, The Foundation for Aviation Safety, Former Boeing Manager Joe Jacobsen, Aerospace Engineer and Technical Advisor to the Foundation for Aviation Safety, Former FAA Engineer Dr. Shawn Pruchnicki, Professional Practice Assistant Professor of Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University April 17, 2024 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Witnesses: Dr. Javier de Luis, Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Dr. Tracy Dillinger, Manager for Safety Culture and Human Factors, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dr. Najmedin Meshkati, Professor, University of Southern California, Aviation Safety and Security Program March 6, 2024 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Witnesses: Jennifer Homendy, Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board Bloomberg Originals March 12, 2020 June 4, 2019 Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD295: Consequences of the Supreme Court

4 juli 2024 | 62 min

CD294: Homeowners Insurance

26 juni 2024 | 71 min

Every American who has a mortgage is required by their bank to have homeowners insurance, but getting it and keeping it is becoming a challenge. In this episode, hear the highlights of a Senate hearing examining the problems in the homeowners insurance market and why they might lead to much bigger problems next time disaster strikes. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Effects of Climate on Insurance Christopher Flavelle and Mira Rojanasakul. May 13, 2024. The New York Times. Chris Van Hollen et al. September 7, 2023. Chris Van Hollen, U.S. Senator for Maryland. Alice C. Hill. August 17, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. Insurance Information Institute. Antonio Grimaldi et al. November 19, 2020. McKinsey & Company. Lobbying OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Heritage Foundation SourceWatch. Demotech William Rabb. April 15, 2024. Insurance Journal. Parinitha Sastry et al. December 2023. Fannie Mae Adam Hayes. May 17, 2023. Investopedia. Hurricanes National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Audio Sources Senate Committee on the Budget June 5, 2024 Witnesses: Glen Mulready, Insurance Commissioner, State of Oklahoma Rade Musulin, Principal, Finity Consulting Dr. Ishita Sen, Assistant Professor of Finance, Harvard Business School Deborah Wood, Florida Resident , Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation’s Grover Hermann Center for the Federal Budget Clips 23:05 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): In 2022 and 2023, more than a dozen insurance companies left the Florida residential market, including national insurers like Farmers. Residents fled to Citizens Property Insurance, the state backed insurer of last resort, which ballooned from a 4% market share in 2019 to as much as 17% last year. If it has to pay out claims that exceed its reserves, citizens can levy a surcharge on Florida insurance policy holders across the state. Good luck with that. Particularly if the surcharge grows to hundreds or even thousands of dollars to depopulate its books. Citizens has let private insurers cherry pick out its least risk policies. Those private insurers may have problems of their own, as we will hear today. 25:10 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): The federal budget takes a hit because these insurers and their policies are accepted by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who either own or guarantee a large part of our $12 trillion mortgage market. This all sounds eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the mortgage meltdown of 2008, including a role of potentially captive or not fully responsible rating agencies. 25:45 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Florida is far from alone. A New York Times investigation found that the insurance industry lost money on homeowners coverage in 18 states last year, and the states may surprise you. The list includes Illinois, Michigan, Utah, Washington, and Iowa. Insurers in Iowa lost money each of the last four years. This is a signal that hurricanes and earthquakes, once the most prevalent perils, are being rivaled by hail, windstorms, and wildfires. 28:00 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): This isn't all that complicated. Climate risk makes things uninsurable. No insurance makes things unmortgageable. No mortgages crashes the property markets. Crashed property markets trash the economy. It all begins with climate risk, and a major party pretending that climate risk isn't real imperils our federal budget and millions of Americans all across the country. 33:45 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Insurance premiums are far too high across the board and may increase after the recent storms, including those very storms in my state of Iowa. Climate change isn't the primary driver of insurance rate hikes and collapse of the insurance industry isn't imminent. Although I'll have to say, Iowa had six property and casualty companies pull out of insuring Iowans. Climate change doesn't explain why auto insurance premiums in 2024 have increased by a whopping 20% year over year. It also doesn't account for the consistent failure of liberal cities to fight crime, which has raised insurance risk and even caused insurers to deny coverage. Expensive liberal policies, not climate change, are much to blame for these market dynamics. 39:00 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): The first witness is Rade Musulin. Rade is an actuary with 45 years of experience in insurance, specializing in property pricing, natural perils, reinsurance, agriculture, catastrophe, risk modeling, public policy development, and climate risk. Specifically, he spent many years working in Florida, including as chair of the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Advisory Council during the time in which Citizens Property Insurance Corporation was established. 39:35 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Our second witness is Dr. Ishida Sen. Dr. Sen is an Assistant Professor at Harvard Business School. Her recent research examines the pricing of property insurance and the interactions between insurance and mortgage markets. This includes the role that institutions and the regulatory landscape play and the broader consequences for real estate markets, climate adaptation, and our overall financial stability. 40:00 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Our third witness is Deb Wood. Ms. Wood and her husband Dan McGrath are both retired Floridians. They moved to South Florida in 1979 and lived in Broward County, which includes Fort Lauderdale for 43 years until skyrocketing insurance premiums became too much. They now reside in Tallahassee, Florida. 40:35 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Dr. EJ Antoni is a Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget. His research focuses on fiscal and monetary policy, and he previously was an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Antoni earned his Master's degree and Doctor's degree in Economics from Northern Illinois University. 41:10 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Commissioner Glen Mulready has served as Oklahoma's 13th Insurance Commissioner and was first elected to this position in 2019. Commissioner Mulready started his insurance career as a broker in 1984, and also served in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. 42:15 Rade Musulin: Okay. My name is Ray Muslin. I'm an actuary who has extensive experience in natural hazard risks and funding arrangements for the damage and loss they cause. I've worked with many public sector entities on policy responses to the challenges of affordability, availability of insurance, and community resilience. This work included participating in Florida's response to Hurricane Andrew, which included the creation of the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The Cat Fund and Citizens can access different forms of funding than traditional insurance companies. Instead of holding sufficient capital or reinsurance before an event to cover the cost of potential losses, both entities use public sources of capital to reduce upfront costs by partially funding losses post-event through bonding and assessments. All property casualty insurance policy holders, whether in Citizens or not, are subject to its assessments. While the Cat Fund can also assess almost all policies, including automobile, this approach exposes Floridians to debt and repayment if large losses occur, and it subsidizes high risk policies from the entire population. These pools, others like them in other states, and the NFIP have contributed to rapid development in high risk areas driving higher costs in the long run. In Florida, national insurers have reduced their exposure as a significant proportion of the insurance market has moved to Citizens or smaller insurers with limited capital that are heavily dependent on external reinsurance. To date, Florida's system has been successful in meeting its claims obligations, while improvements in building codes have reduced loss exposure. However, for a variety of reasons, including exposure to hurricanes, claims cost inflation, and litigation, Florida's insurance premiums are the highest in the nation, causing significant affordability stress for consumers. According to market research from Bankrate, the average premium for a $300,000 home in Florida is three times the national average, with some areas five times the national average. A major hurricane hitting a densely populated area like Miami could trigger large and long lasting post-event assessments or even exceed the system's funding capacity. Continued rapid exposure growth and more extreme hurricane losses amplified by climate change will cause increasing stress on the nation's insurance system, which may be felt through solvency issues, non-renewals, growth of government pools, and affordability pressure. 44:55 Rade Musulin: Evidence of increasing risk abounds, including Hurricane Otis in 2023, which rapidly intensified from a tropical storm to a cat. five hurricane and devastated Acapulco in Mexico last summer. Water temperatures off Florida exceeded a hundred degrees Fahrenheit last week. As was alluded to earlier, NOAA forecast an extremely active hurricane season for '24. We've seen losses in the Mid-Atlantic from Sandy, record flooding from Harvey, and extreme devastation from Maria, among others. In coming decades, we must prepare for the possibility of more extreme hurricanes and coastal flooding from Texas to New England. 46:50 Dr. Ishita Sen: Good morning Senators. I am Ishita Sen, Assistant Professor at Harvard Business School and my research studies insurance markets. In recent work with co-authors at Columbia University and the Federal Reserve Board, I examine how climate risk creates fiscal and potentially financial instability because of miscalibrated insurer screening standards and repercussions to mortgage markets. 47:15 Dr. Ishita Sen: Insurance is critical to the housing market. Property insurers help households rebuild after disasters by preserving collateral values and reducing the likelihood that a borrower defaults. Insurance directly reduces the risks for mortgage lenders and the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Mortgage Lenders therefore require property insurance and the GSEs only purchase mortgages backed by insurers who meet minimum financial strength ratings, which measure insurer solvency and ability to pay claims. The GSEs accept three main rating agencies AM Best, S & P and, more recently, Demotech. And to provide an example, Fannie Mae requires insurers to have at least a B rating from AM Best, or at least an A rating from Demo Tech to accept a mortgage. Now, despite having this policy in place, we find a dramatic rise in mortgages backed by fragile insurers and show that the GSEs and therefore the taxpayers ultimately shoulder a large part of the financial burden. Our research focuses on Florida because of availability of granular insurance market data, and we show that traditional insurers are exiting and the gap is rapidly being filled by insurers, rated by Demotech, which has about 60% market share in Florida today. These insurers are low quality across a range of different financial and operational metrics, and are at a very high risk of becoming insolvent. But despite their risk, these insurers secure high enough ratings to meet the minimum rating requirements set by the GSEs. Our analysis shows that many actually would not be eligible under the methodologies of other rating agencies, implying that in many cases these ratings are inflated and that the GSEs insurer requirements are miscalibrated. 49:20 Dr. Ishita Sen: We next look at how fragile insurers create mortgage market risks. So in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, homeowners with a policy from one of the insolvent Demotech insurers were significantly more likely to default on their mortgage relative to similar borrowers with policies from stable insurers. This is because insurers that are in financial trouble typically are slower to pay claims or may not pay the full amounts. But this implies severe economic hardships for many, many Floridians despite having expensive insurance coverage in place. However, the pain doesn't just stop there. The financial costs of fragile insurers go well beyond the borders of Florida because lenders often sell mortgages, for example, to the GSEs, and therefore, the risks created by fragile insurers spread from one state to the rest of the financial system through the actions of lenders and rating agencies. In fact, we show two reasons why the GSEs bear a large share of insurance fragility risk. First is that lenders strategically securitize mortgages, offloading loans backed by Demotech insurers to the GSEs in order to limit their counterparty risk exposures. And second, that lenders do not consider insurer risk during mortgage origination for loans that they can sell to the GSEs, even though they do so for loans that they end up retaining, indicating lax insurer screening standards for loans that can be offloaded to the GSEs. 50:55 Dr. Ishita Sen: Before I end, I want to leave you with two numbers. Over 90%. That's our estimate of Demotech's market share among loans that are sold to the GSEs. And 25 times more. That's Demotech's insolvency rate relative to AM Best, among the GSE eligible insurers. 57:15 Glen Mulready: As natural disasters continue to rise, understanding the dynamics of insurance pricing is crucial for both homeowners and policymakers. Homeowners insurance is a fundamental safeguard for what is for many Americans their single largest asset. This important coverage protects against financial loss due to damage or destruction of a home and its contents. However, recent years have seen a notable increase in insurance premiums. One significant driver of this rise is convective storms and other severe weather events. Convective storms, which include phenomena like thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hail, have caused substantial damage in various regions. The cost to repair homes and replace belongings after such events has skyrocketed leading insurance companies to adjust their premiums to cover that increased risk. Beyond convective storms, we've witnessed hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding. These events have not only caused damage, but have also increased the long-term risk profile of many areas. Insurance companies are tasked with managing that risk and have responded by raising premiums to ensure they can cover those potential claims. 58:30 Glen Mulready: Another major factor influencing homeowner's insurance premiums is inflation. Inflation affects the cost of building materials, labor, and other expenses related to home repair and reconstruction. As the cost of living increases, so does the cost of claims for insurers. When the price of lumber, steel, and other essential materials goes up, the expense of repairing or rebuilding homes also rises. Insurance companies must reflect these higher costs in their premiums to maintain financial stability and ensure they can meet those contractual obligations to policyholders. 59:35 Glen Mulready: I believe the most essential aspect of managing insurance premiums is fostering a robust, competitive free market. Competition among insurance companies encourages innovation and efficiency, leading to better pricing and services for consumers. When insurers can properly underwrite and price for risk, they create a more balanced and fair market. This involves using advanced data analytics and modeling techniques to accurately assess the risk levels of different properties. By doing so, insurance companies can offer premiums that reflect the true risk, avoiding excessive charges for low risk homeowners, and ensuring high risk properties are adequately covered. Regulation also plays a crucial role in maintaining a healthy insurance market. Policyholders must strike a balance between consumer protection and allowing insurers the freedom and flexibility to adjust their pricing based on the risk. Overly stringent regulations can stifle competition and lead to market exits, reducing choices for consumers. We've seen this play out most recently in another state where there were artificial caps put in place on premium increases that worked well for consumers in the short term, but then one by one, all of the major insurers began announcing they would cease to write any new homeowners insurance in that state. These are all private companies, and if there's not the freedom and flexibility to price their products properly, they may have to take drastic steps as we've seen. Conversely, a well-regulated market encourages transparency and fairness, ensuring that homeowners have access to the most affordable and adequate coverage options. 1:02:00 Dr. EJ Antoni: I'm a public finance economist and the Richard F. Aster fellow at the Heritage Foundation, where I research fiscal and monetary policy with a particular focus on the Federal Reserve. I am also a senior fellow at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. 1:02:15 Dr. EJ Antoni: Since January 2021, prices have risen a cumulative 19.3% on average in the American economy. Construction prices for single family homes have risen much faster, up 30.5% during the same time. 1:03:20 Dr. EJ Antoni: Actuarial tables used in underwriting to estimate risk and future losses, as well as calculate premiums, rely heavily on those input costs. When prices increase radically, precisely as has happened over the last several years, old actuarial tables are of significantly less use when pricing premiums because they will grossly understate the future cost to the insurer. The sharp increase in total claim costs since 2019 has resulted in billions of dollars of losses for both insurers and reinsurers prompting large premium increases to stop those losses. This has put significant financial stress on consumers who are already struggling with a cost of living crisis and are now faced with much higher insurance premiums, especially for homeowners insurance. 1:05:10 Dr. EJ Antoni: The increase in claims related to weather events has undoubtedly increased, but it is not due to the climate changing. This is why the insurance and reinsurance markets do not rely heavily on climate modeling when pricing premiums. Furthermore, climate models are inherently subjective, not merely in how the models are constructed, but also by way of the inputs that the modeler uses. In other words, because insufficient data exists to create a predictive model, a human being must make wide ranging assumptions and add those to the model in place of real world data. Thus, those models have no predictive value for insurers. 1:07:40 Sen. Sheldon Whitehoue (D-RI): You say that this combination of demographics, development, and disasters poses a significant risk to our financial system. What do you mean by risk to our financial system Rade Musulin: Well, Senator, if you look at the combination, as has been pointed out, of high growth and wealth accumulation in coastal areas, and you look at just what we've observed in the climate, much less what's predicted in the future, there is significant exposure along the coastline from Maine to Texas. In fact, my family's from New Jersey and there is enormous development on the coast of New Jersey. And if we start to get major hurricanes coming through those areas, the building codes are probably not up to the same standards they are in Florida. And we could be seeing some significant losses, as I believe was pointed out in the recent Federal Reserve study. Sen. Sheldon Whitehoue (D-RI): And how does that create risk to the financial system? Rade Musulin: Well, because it's sort of a set of dominoes, you start with potentially claims issues with the insurers being stressed and not able to pay claims. You have post-event rate increases as we've seen in Florida, you could have situations where people cannot secure insurance because they can't afford it, then that affects their mortgage security and so on and so forth. So there are a number of ways that this could affect the financial system, sir. Sen. Sheldon Whitehoue (D-RI): Cascading beyond the immediate insurer and becoming a national problem. Rade Musulin: Well, I would just note Senator, that in Florida, the real problems started years after we got past Andrew. We got past paying the claims on Andrew, and then the big problems occurred later when we tried to renew the policies. 1:10:50 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): And you see in this, and I'm quoting you here, parallels in the 2008 financial crisis. What parallels do you see? Dr. Ishita Sen: So just like what happened during the financial crisis, there were rating agencies that gave out high ratings to pools of mortgages backed by subprime loans. Here we have a situation where rating agencies like Demotech are giving out inflated ratings to insurance companies. The end result is sort of the same. There is just too much risk and too many risky mortgages being originated, in this case backed by really low quality insurers that are then entering the financial system. And the consequences of that has to be born by, of course the homeowners, but also the mortgage owners, GSCs (Government Sponsored Enterprises), the lenders, and ultimately the federal and state governments. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): You say, this will be my last question. The fragility of property insurers is an important channel through which climate risk might threaten the stability of mortgage markets and possibly the financial system. What do you mean when you refer to a risk to the financial system? Dr. Ishita Sen: Well, as I was explaining the GSEs, if there are large losses that the GSEs face, then those losses have to be plugged by somebody. So the taxpayers, that's one channel through which you've got risk to the financial system and the GSE's serve as a backstop in the mortgage market. They may not have the ability or capacity to do so in such a scenario, which affects mortgage backed security prices, which are held by all sorts of financial institutions. So that starts affecting all of these institutions. On the other hand, if you've got a bunch of insurers failing, another channel is these insurers are one of the largest investors in many asset classes like corporate bonds, equities, and so on. And they may have to dump these securities at inopportune times, and that affects the prices of these securities as well. 1:12:45 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-AI): Dr. Antoni, is there any evidence to support the notion that climate change is the greatest threat to the insurance market? Dr. EJ Antoni: No. Senator, there is not. And part of that has to do again, with the fact that when we look at the models that are used to predict climate change, we simply don't have enough empirical data with which we can input into those models. And so as a result of that, we have to have human assumptions on what we think is going to happen based essentially on a guess. And as a result of that, these models really are not of any predictive value, and that's why these models for the last 50 years have been predicting catastrophic outcomes, none of which have come true. 1:14:45 Glen Mulready: This focus on the rating agencies, I would agree with that if that were the be all end all. But the state insurance commissioners in each 50 states is tasked with the financial solvency of the insurance companies. We do not depend on rating agencies for that. We are doing financial exams on them. We are doing financial analysis every quarter on each one of them. So I would agree if that was the sort of be all end all, forgive that phrase, but it's not at all. And we don't depend very much at all on those rating agencies from our standpoint. 1:22:15 Dr. Ishita Sen: On the point about regulators looking at -- rating agencies is not something that we need to look at. I would just point out that in Florida, if you look at the number of exams that the Demotech rated insurers, that by the way have a 20% insolvency rate relative to 0% for traditional insurers, they get examined at the same rate as the traditional insurers like Farmers and AllState get examined, which is not something that you would expect if you're more risky. You would expect regulators to come look at them much, much more frequently. And the risk-based capital requirements that we have currently, which were designed in the 1980s, they're just not sensitive enough to new risks like wildfire and hurricanes and so on. And also not as well designed for under-diversified insurance companies because if so, all of these insurers were meeting the risk-based capital requirements, however, at the same time going insolvent at the rate of 20%. So those two things don't really go hand in hand. 1:23:25 Dr. Ishita Sen: Ultimately what the solution is is something that is obviously the main question that we are here to answer, but I would say that it is extremely hard to really figure out what the solution is, in part because we are not in a position right now to even answer some basic facts about how big the problem is, what exactly the numbers look like. For instance, we do not know basic facts about how much coverage people have in different places, how much they're paying. And when I say we don't know, we don't know this at a granular enough level because the data does not exist. And the first step towards designing any policy would be for us to know exactly how bad the problem is. And then we come up with a solution for that and start to evaluate these different policy responses. Right now we are trying to make policy blindfolded. 1:23:50 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So we've had testimony before this committee that we've already spent $5-6 trillion. That's 5,000 to 6,000 billion dollars trying to mitigate climate change. We haven't made a dent in it. Their estimates, it's going to cost tens of trillions of dollars every year to reach net zero. So again, this is not the solution for a real problem, which is the broken insurance market. I have enough Wisconsin residents who live on the Gulf Coast in Florida to know after Hurricane Ian, you got some real problems in Florida. But fixing climate change isn't the solution. 1:33:15 Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): In looking at the materials I saw that Citizens Property Insurance Company, I gather that's Louisiana and Florida, that have a completely state backed program. Well, alright, so if the state becomes the insurer of last resort and they now suffer the same losses that a regular private insurance company is suffering, now the folks in the state are carrying massive debt. So that doesn't seem like a great solution. Dr. Ishita Sen: That's definitely a problem, right? The problem is of course, that whether the state then has the fiscal capacity to actually withstand a big loss, like a big hurricane season, which is a concern that was raised about Citizens. And in such a scenario then in a world where they do not have enough tax revenue, then they would have to go into financial markets, try to borrow money, which could be very costly and so on. So fiscally it's going to be very challenging for many cities and many municipalities and counties and so on. 1:36:40 Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): I wish there were something we could do that would reduce the climate change we're seeing and the warming of the planet. But I've seen absolutely nothing proposed by anyone that reduces CO2 emissions, methane gases and the heating of the planet. Climate change is going to happen because of the development in China and Indonesia and Brazil, and the only thing that actually makes any measurable impact at all is putting a price on carbon, and no one seems to be willing to consider doing that. Everything else that's being talked about on the climate — Democratic Senator: I got two bills. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): I know you and I are, but you guys had reconciliation. You could have done it all by yourselves and you didn't. So the idea that somehow we're going to fix climate and solve the insurance problem is pie in the sky. That's avoiding the reality that we can't fix climate because that's a global issue, not an American issue. Anyway, let me turn back to insurance. 1:38:30 Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): So the question is, what actions can we take? Fiscal reform? Yes, to try and deal with inflation. Except I want to note something, Mr. Antoni, because you're esteemed at the Heritage Foundation. 72% of federal spending is not part of the budget we vote on. So we talk about Biden wants to spend all this.... 72% we don't vote on; we only vote on 28%. Half of that is the military. We Republicans want more military spending, not less. So that means the other 14%, which the Democrats want to expand, there's no way we can reduce the 14% enough to have any impact on the massive deficits we're seeing. So there's going to have to be a broader analysis of what we have to do to reign in our fiscal challenges. I just want to underscore that. I would say a second thing we can do, besides fiscal reform and dealing with inflation, is stopping subsidizing high risk areas. Basically subsidizing people to build expensive places along the coast and in places that are at risk of wildfire. And we subsidize that and that creates huge financial risk to the system. And finally, mitigation of one kind or another. That's the other thing we can do is all sorts of mitigation: forestry management, having people move in places that are not high risk. But if you want to live in a big house on the coast, you're gonna have to spend a lot of money to insure it or take huge risk. That's just the reality. So those are the three I come up with. Stop the subsidy, mitigation, and fiscal reform. What else am I missing, Mr. Musulin? And I'm just going to go down the line for those that are sort of in this area to give me your perspectives. Rade Musulin: Well, thank you, Senator. And I'd agree with all those things. And I'd also add that we need to start thinking about future-proofing our building codes and land use policies. The sea levels are rising. If you're going to build a house that's supposed to last 75 years, you ought to be thinking about the climate in 75 years when you give somebody a permit to build there. So I'd say that's important. I'd also say that large disasters also drive inflation because it puts more pressure and demand on labor and materials. More disasters means supplies that could have been used to build new homes for Americans or diverted to rebuild homes in the past. So certainly doing things to reduce the vulnerability of properties and improve their resilience is important. And I do think, sir, that there are things we can do about climate change with respect over periods of decades that can make a difference in the long run. Thank you. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): Thank you. Yes. Dr. Ishita Sen: So before that, the one point about inflation that we are missing, which is without doubt it is a contributing factor, but the US has had inflation in the past without such an acute crisis in insurance markets. So whether that is the biggest cause or not is up for debate. I don't think we have reached a conclusion on inflation being the biggest contributor of rising insurance cost. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): It's just a big one. You'd agree It's a big one? Dr. Ishita Sen: I agree. It's a big one, but I wouldn't say it's the biggest one in terms of policy solutions. I completely agree with you on, we need to stop subsidizing building in high risk areas. That's definitely one of the things we need to do that. Mitigation, another point that you bring up. And on that, I would say not only do we need to harden our homes, but we also need to harden our financial institutions, our banks, and our insurance companies in order to make them withstand really large climate shocks that are for sure coming their way. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT): Thank You, Ms. Wood. I'm going to let you pass on this just because that's not your area of expertise. Your experience was something which focused our thinking today. Mr. Mulready. Glen Mulready: Thank you, Senator. I would say amen to your comments, but I'll give you three quick things. Number one, FEMA has a survey out that states that every $1 spent in mitigation saves $6 in lost claims. It pays off. Number two, unfortunately, a lot of communities have to have a disaster happen. In Moore, Oklahoma, back a dozen years ago, an EF5 (tornado) hit, it was just totally devastating. After that, the city of Moore changed their zoning, they changed their building zoning codes, and then third, the city of Tulsa, back in the eighties, had horrible flooding happened. So they invested over decades in infrastructure to prevent flooding. Now we're one of only two communities in the country that are Class one NFIP rated. 1:45:40 Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): One way to address this, and I think it was discussed in a different matter, is the need to get the data and to get consensus on where the risks lie, which is why last year Senator Whitehouse, Senator Warren and I sent a letter to the Treasury Department, to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), urging them to collect information from different states. I'm a supporter of a state-based insurance system for property and casualty insurance, but I do think it would benefit all of us to have a sort of national yardstick against which we can measure what's happening. So Dr. Sen, could you talk a little bit about the benefit of having a common source of insurance data through the FIO and how that could benefit state regulators and benefit all of us? Dr. Ishita Sen: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for bringing that up. That's just the first order importance, I think, because we don't even know the basic facts about this problem at a granular enough level. The risks here are local, and so we need to know what's going zip code-by-zip code, census tract-by-census tract, and for regulators to be able to figure out exactly how much risk is sitting with each of these insurance companies they need to know how much policies they're writing, what's the type of coverage they're selling in, what are the cancellations looking like in different zip codes. Only then can they figure out exactly how exposed these different insurers are, and then they can start designing policy about whether the risk-based capital ratios look alright or not, or should we put a surcharge on wildfires or hurricanes and so on? And we do need a comprehensive picture. We just can't have a particular state regulator look at the risks in that state, because of course, the insurer is selling insurance all over the country and we need to get a comprehensive picture of all of that. 1:47:40 Sen. Chris Van Hollen: I appreciate that. I gather that the Treasury Department is getting some resistance from some state insurance regulators. I hope we can overcome that because I'm not sure why anyone would want to deny the American people the benefit of the facts here. 1:48:45 Rade Musulin: I will just note that sometimes climate change itself can contribute to the inflation we've been talking about. For example, there were beetle infestations and droughts and fires in Canada, which decimated some of the lumber crop and led to a fivefold increase in the cost of lumber a few years ago. So some of this claims inflation is actually related to climate change, and I think we need to address that. 1:49:35 Glen Mulready: If you didn't know, the NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commission is in the midst of a data collection right now that will collect that data for at least 80% of the homeowner's market. And we have an agreement with FIO (Federal Insurance Office) to be sharing that data with them. They originally came to us, I got a letter from FIO and they were requesting data that we did not actually collect at the zip code level, and they had a very stringent timeline for that. So my response, it wasn't, no, it was just, look, we can't meet that timeline. We don't collect that today. We can in the future. But from that is where this has grown the data called by the NEIC. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): So I appreciate, I saw that there had been now this effort on behalf of the....So has this now been worked out? Are there any states that are objecting, to your knowledge at this point in time, in terms of sharing data? Glen Mulready: I don't know about specific states. We will be collecting data that will represent at least 80% of the market share. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD293: NTSB Transportation Safety Warnings

31 maj 2024 | 48 min

In March, the Senate received testimony from the Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board about some transportation related dangers that you should know about. In this episode, hear testimony about those dangers, including those posed by airborne tourism companies, electric vehicles, and self driving technology. You will also hear a stunning NTSB finding about a likely profit-prioritization decision of railroad company Norfolk Southern, which unnecessarily lead to the poisoning of East Palestine, OH. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Traffic Fatalities National Center for Statistics and Analysis. April 2024. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Helicopter Crashes May 10, 2022. National Transportation Safety Board. n.d. National Transportation Safety Board. Audio Sources March 6, 2024 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Witnesses: Jennifer Homendy, Chair, National Transportation Safety Board Clips Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO): I did have some questions. I know that Senator Fisher mentioned some of this earlier as relates to electric vehicles. The weight of some of these vehicles, including, I know you mentioned the battery alone can be the weight of a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla, and so there's certainly safety issues there. It relates to guardrails and other vehicles on the road. You would agree with that, right? Jennifer Homendy: Yes. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO): There's also issues, I wanna talk about our infrastructure too. The weight of these vehicles, the strain that it can have on parking garages, roads, and bridges. The amount of money that will be expended to either reinforce or repair. Who is looking at this? Because we have a mandate for auto manufacturers to produce 50% of their fleet to be electric vehicles by 2030. I know there's a new rule in the works to have that number increased. I don't know if it's 65% or 75% by 2032, that's being considered. So it seems to me we're entering this phase as it relates to these mandates for electric vehicles and all of these repercussions, all of these ancillary concerns, I don't know who's addressing it, so I'm asking you, are you guys looking at this? Who is looking at this? Because this seems to be a disaster on the horizon for the American people and our infrastructure, but I don't hear a lot of talk about it. Jennifer Homendy: Thank you, Senator. I have raised this consistently over the past year and a half, starting with a transportation research board where I raised concerns with respect to increasing size and weight of all vehicles, but particularly the weight of electric vehicles that we really needed to look at the safety impact, not just on crashes, but to our infrastructure as well, and protecting people. The whole reason why we have a guardrail is to protect people when there is a crash. Yet it wouldn't withstand some of the crashes with some of these high weights of heavy vehicles, including heavy electric vehicles as was demonstrated by the University of Nebraska. Somebody needs to take action here. We have repeatedly flagged it. It is within the Department of Transportation's purview to do that, and I encourage them strongly to get ahead of it. We're behind right now. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO): As it relates to first responders who are responding to crashes that lithium batteries are involved with, what is your take on the safety for our first responders as they're responding to these EV crashes? Jennifer Homendy: It's a significant danger. We issued a report just a few years ago raising concerns regarding a number of crashes that we investigated involving electric vehicles and the risk to emergency responders from stranded energy inside the battery and components and the significant potential for shock. We also raised concerns with respect to secondary responders, which are the tow truck operators because we saw many of these vehicles reigniting on the tow truck and up to five days later in the tow yard. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): February 3rd, 2023 derailment of the train. Is it true that Norfolk Southern's contractors monitored temperatures on one of the chemical tank cars from the afternoon of February 5th into the afternoon of February 6th, which is when the controlled burn happened, and communicated their initial readings to Oxy Vinyls, the shippers in charge of the vinyl chloride cars? Jennifer Homendy: That's accurate, Senator. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): Is it true that these readings indicated an initial temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit at 4:00 PM on February 5th, which eventually declined to 126 degrees Fahrenheit at 9:30 AM on February 6th, at which point it stabilized? Jennifer Homendy: That's correct, Senator. It was stabilized well before the vent and burn. Many hours before. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): So declining temperatures, you would think, and stabilized temperatures are consistent, not with something that needs to be exploded, but with something that can be dealt with in a slightly less, less catastrophic way. At least that's my read on it. But is it true that the chemical shipper Oxy Vinyls concluded that the reported and stabilized tank car temperatures were too low for a runaway chemical reaction, meaning the sort of thing that would lead to an uncontrolled explosion? Jennifer Homendy: That's correct. They had testified that polymerization was not occurring. In order for polymerization to occur, which was Norfolk Southern and their contractor's justification for the vent and burn. You would have to have rapidly increasing temperatures and some sort of infusion of oxygen, neither of which occurred. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): Right. And just to be clear, you would need both of those things. It's not an either/or. You need both of them to precipitate polymerization, which would lead to an uncontrolled... Jennifer Homendy: Correct. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): So is it true that Norfolk Southern's contractors testified to the NTSB that they were not certain a chemical reaction was occurring in the derailed vinyl chloride tank car? Jennifer Homendy: They testified to that, yes sir. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): Is it correct that the chemical shippers testified that there was no free radical agent or sufficient heat trajectory to justify Norfolk Southern Contractor's assessment that a chemical reaction was occurring? Jennifer Homendy: That's correct. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): So from this assessment, is it your understanding that Norfolk Southern's contractors lacked scientific basis to support their conclusion that polymerization was occurring in the derailed VCM tank cars? Jennifer Homendy: Yes, in fact, they were informed by Oxy vinyls of the information that should have been taken by the contractors in their decision making. But yes, they did not have that. They lacked the scientific background to address that.Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): So let me just go to one final question here. We combine all these facts together. Your reporting thus far concludes that Norfolk Southern's contractors recommendation to conduct a controlled burn lacked sufficient scientific basis, disregarded available temperature data and contradicted expert feedback from the shipping firm on site. Now, this was all told to the decision makers on the ground, they had to make a decision in less than 13 minutes to blow up all five of these toxic chemical cars without any other voices being included to offer a contrary opinion. Is that right? Jennifer Homendy: That's correct. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): So again, I appreciate your work on this, but just to sort of summarize, this is an extraordinary finding. We were told effectively that there were two bad options. The uncontrolled burn -- excuse me, the controlled burn or the uncontrolled explosion. And it seems based on the data that we have that there was not a ton of reason to do the controlled burn. And that of course is what spread toxic chemicals all over this community and the surrounding region. It's really an extraordinary finding. It goes to highlight the importance of your work. But I also have to note that residents on the ground talk about the fact that immediately after the controlled burn, they moved the tank cars and train traffic was moving through their town and moving through their community. I won't ask you to speak to motivations here, but when you have an unnecessary controlled burn that poisoned a lot of people, that then led to rapid transit of train traffic, a lot of people, including me, are wondering, did they do this not because it was necessary, but because it allowed them to move traffic and freight more quickly. And if so, that is an extraordinary thing that I think requires a lot of further work from this committee and from others. But we will stop there. Because I see my time is up. Thank you. Chair Homendy. Jennifer Homendy: May I add something to that? Senator, I would say the factual information in our docket shows that Oxy Vinyls was on scene and providing information to Norfolk Southern and their contractors on the fourth, fifth, and sixth. They informed them that they believed polymerization was not occurring and there was no justification to do a vent and burn. Rightfully, Norfolk Southern's contractors ruled out hot tapping and transloading 'cause it would've been a potential safety issue for their employees. But there was another option. Let it cool down. It was cooling down. We know for a fact that when that pressure relief device went off, that it had to have been above 185 degrees. Later, over the course of 22 hours, that tank car was cooling, not to mention the other four tank cars that were only between 64 and 69 degrees. So Oxy Vinyls was on scene providing information to Norfolk Southern's contractor who was in the room when the decision was made and when advice was given to the governor of Ohio, to the incident commander. They were not given full information because no one was told Oxy Vinyl was on scene. They were left out of the room. The incident commander didn't even know they existed. Neither did the governor. So they were provided incomplete information to make a decision. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI): I'm wondering if you could provide a status update on how you view the current safety standards for helicopter air tours. And do you believe that the safety provisions included in the Senate version of the FAA bill would improve the safety of these tours? Jennifer Homendy: Thank you very much for your work on this issue and for Senator Schatz's work on this issue. I think it's critical. The NTSB believes in one level of safety. As before I became NTSB chair or before I worked on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, if I showed up with my family to take an air tour, I would not know to ask what are the qualifications of the crew? What are your operating standards? What are your operating rules? What are your maintenance procedures? You wouldn't normally ask those questions. If you are somebody who shows up for a parachute jump flight, you think my biggest risk is jumping out of the plane, not getting on the plane, which also crashed in Hawaii. So we believe you're a paying passenger, whether you're on part 1 21, part 1 35, part 91, you deserve the same level of safety. And we have advocated strongly for a set of regulatory standards that address just that. We've seen no action on that. This is something I have been extremely passionate about since I came to the board, whether it was flyNYON in New York, where we literally listened to some people's last moments that were strapped into a helicopter on an air tour with a Home Depot harness that was supposed to hold them in and they couldn't unhook it, they drowned. That is horrific. So still we don't have the standards we've recommended. We did an entire report on ensuring safety in revenue passenger operations under part 91. We looked at incidents or accidents, terrible tragedies in Hawaii, Arizona, I mentioned New York, Connecticut with a B 17, historic adventure flight that crashed. And each time we continue to say safety needs to improve and each time we've been ignored. The public deserves better. FAA should issue standards to ensure their safety. Jennifer Homendy: So the derailment rate is sort of a combined rate from mainline track and for the yards. We are seeing a significant increase in derailments and tragedies in the yards. That is where we're very concerned about employee safety. We've seen that repeatedly. We've issued a number of recommendations. We have a lot of open investigations. For Norfolk Southern alone we have eight investigations that are currently open, and we're also doing a safety culture review separate from East Palestine. But in particular we have 190 safety recommendations that we've issued that are currently open to improve rail safety. Whether it's preventing fatigue or providing for increased inspection or new technologies to supplement, not supplant workers, supplement the work to ensure safety. Those 190 have not been acted upon. Happy to provide those for the hearing record, but they can be today and I hope they will. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Now I'd like to turn to the significant risk posed by autonomous vehicles. In the past eight years, the NTSB has investigated multiple incidents involving autonomous driving technologies like Tesla's autopilot system that are designed to operate in specific road conditions, particularly on highways. In fact, in 2016, NTSB recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and auto manufacturers restrict drivers from activating these systems outside those road conditions. It's long past time that we take firm control of the wheel and steer towards safety and implement this recommendation. So, Madam Chair, can you briefly explain the reasoning for this recommendation? Jennifer Homendy: Yes. And in fact, I thought this may come up because this is a, you're a champion on this issue, and I just pulled Tesla's statement on, which is really their limitations on operational design domain. They warn on their website for those who have vehicles, that some of their automation will not work in some areas, including areas of poor visibility, heavy rain, snow, fog, bright light, oncoming headlights, direct sunlight, mud, ice, snow, interference or obstruction by objects mounted onto the vehicle, narrow, high-curvature, or winding roads and damaged or misaligned bumper, an extremely hot or cold temperature, an area where the vehicle is not designed to operate using that technology. Who reads that? We have to make -- Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Well, that just leaves backing out of the driveway and then going back into your car again. Because other than that, you're out on the road. This isn't like the postal service through rain, sleet, snow, gloom of night. They're saying, well, the sunlight might affect it or the snow might affect it, or rainy conditions might affect it. Or winding roads might affect it. So as I'm listening to that description, it sounds like to me it's not ready for prime time. It's not ready to be handed over to people who have grown up with a car that they drive, where they expect the brakes or the steering wheel to all work, no matter where they're going, and not, oh, by the way, this thing that you just turned on could be extremely dangerous for your two kids in the backseat. Jennifer Homendy: Well, and if it's only designed to be operated in a certain type of environment, it should be limited to those environments. We issued that recommendation to Tesla following the 2016 tragedy in Williston, Florida. We issued the same recommendation to NHTSA. We issued it again. Both have failed to act on those recommendations. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD292: Sabotaging Palestine

23 maj 2024 | 114 min

President Biden has signed three new laws containing policy changes that will have long lasting effects on the people of Palestine. In this episode, seven months into the ongoing destruction of Gaza, see what Congress and the President have enacted in your name. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Sources for Gaza News Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Who Pays for Corporate Media 2024. iSpot.tv. 2024. iSpot.tv. Hamas Dan De Luce et al. April 18, 2024. NBC News. December 29, 2023. International Court of Justice. Abdelali Ragad et al. November 27, 2023. BBC. Destruction of Khan Yunis Bisan Owda. May 21, 2024. AJ+ (@ajplus) and Al Jazeera English (@aljazeeraenglish) on Instagram. Israel’s Buffer Zone Around Gaza Ruwaida Kamal Amer. May 21, 2024. +972 Magazine. Camille Bressange et al. March 16, 2024. The Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2024. Jon Gambrell. AP News. Dov Liber et al. January 25, 2024. The Wall Street Journal. Loveday Morris et al. January 24, 2024. The Washington Post. Israeli Settlements March 20, 2024. CNN on YouTube. Amira Hass. March 12, 2024. Haaretz. Julia Frankel. February 23, 2024. AP News. Nir Hasson and Rachel Fink. January 28, 2024. Haaretz. Itai Weiss. December 27, 2023. Haaretz. Hagar Shezaf. December 11, 2020. Haaretz. Updated February 2, 2024. Encyclopedia Britannica. AI Kill List Isaac Chotiner. April 12, 2024. The New Yorker. April 5, 2024. Amy Goodman and Yuval Abraham. Democracy Now! Avi Scharf. April 5, 2024. Haaretz. Ishaan Tharoor. April 5, 2024. The Washington Post. April 3, 2024. The Guardian. Yuval Abraham. April 3, 2024. +972 Magazine. Yuval Abraham. November 30, 2023. +972 Magazine. Patrick Kingsley and Ronen Bergman. Updated Oct. 18, 2023. The New York Times. Ami Rokhax Domba. February 14, 2023. Israel Defense. Tamir Eshel. June 13, 2021. Defense Update. Israelis Who Died in October October 19, 2023. Haaretz. Massacre at al-Shifa Hospital Tareq S. Hajjaj. April 11, 2024. Mondoweiss. Abeer Salman et al. April 1, 2024. CNN. Supplemental Funding April 24, 2024. The Washington Post. April 21, 2024. PBS NewsHour. UNRWA Ayesha Rascoe and Jackie Northam. April 28, 2024. NPR. Emanuel Fabian. February 16, 2024. The Times of Israel. Who Governs Palestine Noa Rone. March 8, 2024. Unpacked. UN Human Rights Council Updated April 5, 2024. United Nations Human Rights Council. April 18, 2023. United Nations General Assembly. ‘Detainee’ treatment February 19, 2024. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. United Nations Information Service. July 10, 2023. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Suppression of Journalism March 20, 2023. Jewish News Syndicate. January 24, 2002. BBC. Why It’s Not a War Ajit Singh (@ajitxsingh). November 14, 2023. X. Francesca Albanese. November 14, 2023. National Press Club of Australia on Youtube. Torture in Israeli Detention Facilities May 11, 2024. Middle East Eye on YouTube. CNN's International Investigations and Visuals teams. May 11, 2024. CNN. Netta Ahituv. May 4, 2024. Haaretz. Leahy Amendment Ben Samuels. April 27, 2024. Haaretz. International Criminal Court Michel Martin and John Bellinger III on All Things Considered. April 16, 2022. NPR. Laws Audio Sources May 5, 2024 Al Jazeera English on Instagram (@aljazeeraenglish) Imran Khan: If you are watching this prerecorded report, then Al Jazeera has been banned in the territory of Israel. On April the first, the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, passed a law that allowed the Prime Minister to ban Al Jazeera. He's now enacted that law. Let me just take you through some of the definitions. Within the law, they've banned our website, including anything that has the option of entering or accessing the website, even passwords that are needed whether they're paid or not, and whether it's stored on Israeli servers or outside of Israel. The website is now inaccessible. They're also banning any device used for providing content. That includes my mobile phone. If I use that to do any kind of news gathering, then the Israelis can simply confiscate it. Our internet access provider, the guy that simply hosts aljazeera.net, is also in danger of being fined if they host the website. The Al Jazeera TV channel [is] completely banned. Transmission by any kind of content provider is also banned and holding offices or operating them in the territory of Israel by the channel. Also, once again, any devices used to provide content for the channel can be taken away by the Israelis. It's a wide ranging ban. We don't know how long it'll be in place for, but it does cover this territory of the state of Israel. May 5, 2024 Al Jazeera English on YouTube Cyril Vanier: So what does the war look like, as presented by Israeli media to Israelis? Gideon Levy: Very, very simple picture. We are the victims. We are the only victims, as usual. There was the 7th of October, and we will stick to the 7th of October, which was almost the Holocaust in the eyes of most of the Israelis and this 7th of October enables us and legitimizes us to do whatever we want in Gaza. Gaza doesn't interest us. Gaza is Hamas and Hamas, Gaza. And therefore, we should punish them all, and if possible, even kill them al, destroy them all, and we will. We have no interest to see what's the suffer[ing] of Gaza, what's the punishment of Gaza, what the innocent people of Gaza are going through. We are only interested in the brave soldiers, the hostages and the victims of the 7th of October. That's our world, and that's the world that the Israeli media as a whole is describing to its viewers for seven months now, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Only this, you don't see Gaza. April 10, 2024 House Foreign Affairs Committee Witnesses: Samantha Power, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development Clips 47:15 Samantha Power: Again, you had very little, almost no child malnutrition before October 7, and you now have a massive spike. And particularly in the north, one in three kids are suffering from malnutrition. And again, the reports of famine also spreading to the south. It makes sense because so little assistance has gotten in commensurate to the needs of more than 2 million people. 1:13:55 Samantha Power: My understanding - this is something that Secretary Blinken is managing and you'll have a chance I'm sure to engage him on - but the national security memorandum 20 that was issued not long ago is taking 620 I and those elements into consideration. I think that report is due out in early May. 1:41:40 Samantha Power: You know well, because you've been in so many of these countries, we don't have an NGO out there -- This is not your traditional UN agency, where you can have like schools in a box, teachers in a box, health workers in a box. Hamas was the state and Hamas won the election back in the day. And Hamas had far too much influence on certain individuals, or even certain individuals were, it seems, potentially part of Hamas. But the fact is, the administration of schools and health systems was UNRWA. There's not an NGO or another UN agency that could perform the function of a State like that, or at least I haven't encountered one in my years of humanitarian service. 2:02:20 Samantha Power: One little parenthetical is, Israel, about a month ago, in light of the horrific allegations, made a decision that UNRWA could not participate in convoys to the north - humanitarian convoys. But what that meant was, fundamentally there could be no convoys to the north because you can't, as bombs are falling and kinetic operations are underway and terrorists are being pursued, suddenly invent an entire humanitarian infrastructure. 2:17:20 Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): I want to ask you obviously about the very urgent situation humanitarian situation in Gaza. In your testimony, you said that the entire population of Gaza is living under the threat of famine. News reports came out recently that certain USAID officials sent a cable to the National Security Council warning that famine is already likely occurring in parts of the Gaza Strip. According to the report "famine conditions are most severe and widespread in northern Gaza, which is under Israeli control." Do you think that it's plausible or likely that parts of Gaza and particularly northern Gaza, are already experiencing famine? Samantha Power: Well, the methodology that the IPC used is one that we had our experts scrub, it's one that's relied upon in other settings, and that is their assessments and we believe that assessment is credible. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): So there's a famine is already occurring there. Samantha Power: That is… Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): Yes, okay. 2:18:14 Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): More than half of the population of Gaza is under the age of 18, as you know, and are seriously affected by the lack of access to food and nutrition. Various organizations, including the United Nations, have warned that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children may die if they don't get necessary food and nutrition assistance in just the next two to three weeks. Has USAID made such an assessment itself? And do you have a sense of how many such children might be at risk of dying if they don't get access to food and nutrition that's currently unavailable? Samantha Power: I do not have those assessments on hand. But I will say that in northern Gaza, the rate of malnutrition, prior to October 7, was almost zero. And it is now one in three, one in three kids. But extrapolating out is hard. And I will say just with some humility, because it is so hard to move around in Gaza, because the access challenges that give rise in part to the malnutrition are so severe, it is also hard to do the kind of scaled assessments that we would wish to do. But in terms of actual severe acute malnutrition for under fives, that rate was 16% in January, and became 30% in February, and we're awaiting the the March numbers, but we expect it to -- Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): So it got markedly worse. Samantha Power: Markedly worse. But extrapolating and giving you the overall numbers… Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): And just to be clear, I realize you're not part of the DoD or the State Department even, working on these issues diplomatically. But is it your understanding that humanitarian assistance and food assistance is not supposed to be denied even when countries are at war with each other? Because there is this argument that if Hamas would release the hostages, if they would surrender, that this would stop, but there's certain laws of war and certain conduct that nations are supposed to follow, and that includes allowing for humanitarian assistance. Samantha Power: Correct. I mean, I will say, of course, we all agree the hostages should be released, absolutely. An absolute outrage that they had been kept this long and the horror and terror for their families, the families of those individuals I can't even contemplate but yes, food must flow. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): Kids can't be starved because you have two groups that are at war with each other. Samantha Power: Food must flow and food has not flowed in sufficient quantities to avoid this imminent famine in the south and these conditions that are giving rise already to child deaths in the north. 2:29:20 Samantha Power: Again, trusted partners like World Food Programme and UNICEF and others have not reported that Hamas is getting in the way of distributing humanitarian assistance. And I will say, nor are we getting those reports from the IDF who are present on the ground in Gaza. Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC): I have been getting reports, in fact, that Hamas is targeting, punishing or hindering Palestinians who are working with the international community to provide humanitarian assistance. You have not seen any evidence of that? Samantha Power: I would be very interested in those reports, but that is not what our partners are reporting back to us. Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC): Do you believe that Hamas is benefiting from the aid that we are providing to Gaza? Samantha Power: I mean, I don't even know how to think about that question in this moment when Hamas is on the run and being pursued across Gaza. So, you know, I don't think they are in a position, because of what the IDF is doing, to benefit per se. Would family members of Hamas potentially begin getting access at a food distribution? You know, that's possible. It's going to civilians. Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC): Do you have any idea how Hamas fighters are getting their food? Samantha Power: I don't. Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC): So it is a difficult balance to strike when we desperately want to make sure that innocent Palestinians don't suffer and don't starve, but we don't want to do anything to embolden Hamas. 2:46:10 Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): There was already serious concern with the operations of UNRWA prior to the administration's decision to cut funding. Further this past November, I led floor debate to pass the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act, which discussed the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel curricula taught to children in Gaza and the West Bank, a curriculum taught by UNRWA employees. So while yes, we appreciate the prohibition on new funding in January, this is long overdue, as there were clear and present issues that UNRWA that look like were ignored by the administration. 2:48:45 Samantha Power: Putting people who want to eliminate another people in power is not anything that anybody would have wished. But the effect is that the governing institution had significant leverage over the UN agency that was carrying out -- Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): A terrorist state that has had control over this agency, which is in part why we have pushed to defund it. Would you support future year Appropriations defunding UNRWA? Samantha Power: I don't know if you've had a chance to talk to the King of Jordan, for example. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): I've had dinner with him, in Jordan. Samantha Power: And about what it is going to mean for the Jordanian people to have 2 million young people basically looking for where their schools are going to get support. Now, it may be that the Europeans and others come in and address this issue and it doesn't -- Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): Defunding UNWRA does not mean that we don't deal with humanitarian issues. It doesn't mean that we don't -- Samantha Power: No, no but it just is the school system. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): It doesn't mean that we don't deal with it, it means we find a different vehicle by which to do this, but UNRWA itself has proven to be corrupt. Samantha Power: You've been here for much of the exchange. There's no NGO, there's no UN agency that creates school systems. There's no, like, U haul where there's a school system that you just deploy in Jordan, to educate 2.6 million Jordanian kids, it just doesn't work that way. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): Respectfully, being snide about it is not actually solving the issue here. The reality is UNRWA is not the vehicle by which we should be sending American taxpayer dollars at this point. It's just not. Samantha Power: We will follow the law. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): Right, my question to you was, do you support moving forward? Samantha Power: I'm describing the benefits of educating young people across the region and providing health services, and I'm not seeing a viable alternative. So I would suggest -- Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): So you believe we should continue? Samantha Power: I think, first of all, we don't know what Gaza is going to look like after this war ends. Hopefully, Hamas will be dismantled and new institutions will be in place whereby they will take care of educating their own young people, and you won't need a UN agency to do it. But it is extremely important that we look out for young people in Gaza, it is going to do nobody any favors for them not to have access to an education Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): No, the fact is, on October 7, part of the reason that you had that type of terrorist attack is because of the level of hatred and anti-semitism that is taught in schools in Gaza. That is part of the problem here. And UNRWA helped in terms of allowing for that to occur under the guise of a UN agency. It is disgusting. It is shameful, and the fact that we as the United States have helped support that organization helped fund it is an embarrassment. And that's why we fought to defund it. 3:00:00 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA): I am hypercritical of the alleged 12 or 15, who may have been infiltrating as Hamas, who may have participated in the October 7, horrendous barbaric attack. But you don't throw everybody and all the good work out. Because I want to ask you, if we continue this pause, if the world said we will not help you UNRWA, your however many thousands of workers who are on the ground, who keep coming to work even when their whole families are killed, what will happen with famine in Gaza, if we just shut it down? No more UNRWA. By the way, they're not educating. We know that they can't even do that now. They have incredibly important vaccines and medical aid to to be a part of, but the essentialness of food and water. What happens if we continue this disinformation campaign of 'Defund UNRWA'? Samantha Power: Well, first, thank you for bringing some facts into the conversation that I probably should have raised before, including just the horrific loss of life for those who work for UNRWA. And in general, you know, more than 228 workers killed by IDF or in my IDF military operations to this point, including, most recently of course, the World Central Kitchen colleagues, devastatingly. And thank you also for reminding us all. UNRWA is an organization in Gaza alone of 13,000 people. The vast majority of those people have not been propagating hate but have been actually trying to educate young people. The literacy rate in Gaza-West Bank, I think, is something like 99%. It's one of the most effective literacy efforts in any of the places that USAID works. In terms of what would happen if the whole thing shut down....Right now, it looks like other countries are stepping up to avert that scenario. But, you know, I just cannot overstate how chaotic and how horrific the conditions in Gaza are. You've spoken to them. The visuals speak to the level of destruction. There's no work-around for the infrastructure that they provide. After the war, when there's a new administration of Gaza, if that comes about, obviously, that's itself extremely complicated. You know, the question of who is providing education as they try to rebuild virtually everything from scratch and the education and the health sector? You know, some of these questions will be will be addressed. But right now, there is no way to avert large scale famine without relying on the humanitarian backbone that has been enriched for decades, and that remains UNRWA today. We are going to follow the law, we are going to work through other partners. But, I started to say this earlier: even the government of Israel, which had banned UNRWA's participation in convoys, because of the food crisis - and US engagement, I hope - has now decided that UNRWA can in fact be part of convoys going to the North because they recognize there's just no other way. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA): Right. And I want to commend to anybody to please meet with the director of UNRWA who is stationed in Rafah: a 20-plus-year US military veteran. I don't know how people stay at this kind of work with the risks that they are taking, but they are there. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD291: Warrantless Spying Continues

24 april 2024 | 70 min

CD290: Israel War Money: What’s Already Law

17 april 2024 | 71 min

After an unprecedented embassy bombing followed by an unprecedented drone and missile attack, Israel and Iran may have us on the brink of WWIII. In this episode, as Congress and the Biden administration ponder additional support for Israel, we take a look at what has already been approved for Israel in the 2024 defense authorization and funding law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Netanyahu Howard Eissenstat. Sept 20, 2012. Slate. Akiva Eldar. February 10, 2009. Haaretz. Attacks on U.S. Bases Ken Klippenstein. February 9, 2024. The Intercept. Doug G. Ware. November 6, 2023. Stars and Stripes. Doug G. Ware. October 31, 2023. Stars and Stripes. Iran-Israel Conflict David Hearst. April 15, 2024. Middle East Eye. Tom Spender. April 15, 2024. BBC. Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw. April 14, 2024. The Intercept. Barak Ravid. April 14, 2024. Axios. Ben Samuels. April 14, 2024. Haaretz. Cassandra Vinograd and Natan Odenheimer. April 14, 2024. The New York Times. Permanent Mission of I.R.Iran to UN, NY (@Iran_UN). April 13, 2024. Ellen Knickmeyer and Lolita C. Baldor. April 3, 2024. PBS NewsHour. Fear of U.S. War with Iran Ali Vaez. April 15, 2024. Foreign Affairs. Murtaza Hussain. April 14, 2024. The Intercept. Carol E. Lee et al. April 14, 2024. NBC News. Uri Misgav. November 23, 2023. Haaretz. Julian Borger. December 17, 2023. The Guardian. Marwan Bishara. October 9, 2023. Aljazeera. Defense funding for Israel Yuval Azulay. April 15, 2024.” CTech by Calcalist. Noah Robertson. November 15, 2023. Defense News. Jeremy M. Sharp. March 1, 2023. Congressional Research Service via EveryCRSReport.com. Raytheon. 2021. Rafael. Jeremy M. Sharp. September 30, 2014. Congressional Research Service via EveryCRSReport.com. Tony Capaccio. May 27, 2014. Bloomberg. January 7, 2014. Boeing. Boeing and Raytheon Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Open Secrets. Open Secrets. Open Secrets. Open Secrets. Foreign Military Financing Nathan J. Lucas and Michael J. Vassalotti. February 21, 2020. Congressional Research Service via EveryCRSReport.com. March 2017. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Department of Defense.* Abraham Accords U.S. Department of State. Jordan Zvi Bar’el. April 15, 2024. Haaretz. Jonathan Shamir. April 16, 2023. Haaretz. Saudi Arabia April 14, 2024. Al Arabiya English. Laws Executive Producer Recommended Sources King Abdullah. 1947. From the Internet Archive, originally published in The American Magazine. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD289: The Not A TikTok Ban Bill

15 mars 2024 | 58 min

A bill is quickly moving through Congress that supposedly would “ban TikTok.” While it is clearly aimed at TikTok, this bill is really about creating a new Presidential power to remove Americans’ access to apps, websites, games and other entire tech platforms. In this episode, using the text of the bill itself, we examine how exactly this new censorship power would work if the bill passes the Senate and becomes law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Not a TikTok Ban Bill Drew Harwell et al. March 13, 2024. The Washington Post. David E. Sanger. March 13, 2024. The New York Times. Aamer Madhani. March 8, 2024. AP News. Opposition to the bill Jenna Leventoff. March 13, 2024. ACLU. Access Now et al. March 12, 2024. ACLU. How we got here Dan Primack. March 12, 2024. Axios. Samantha Delouya and Brian Fung. November 30, 2023. CNN. Emily Baker-White. August 21, 2023. Forbes. November 20, 2023. Reuters. Brian Fung. December 30, 2022. CNN. James K. Jackson. February 14, 2020. Congressional Research Service. Grindr Echo Wang. May 13, 2019. Reuters. Jeff Farrah. April 15, 2019. TechCrunch. ByteDance Lily Kuo and Annabelle Timsit. March 13, 2024. The Washington Post. April 16, 2023. TikTok. Censorship and Spying Jonathan Vanian. January 22, 2024. CNBC. May 16, 2023. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs. Marielle Descalsota. December 27, 2022. Business Insider. Lily Hay Newman. May 7, 2019. Wired. Israel and AIPAC Camille Bressange. March 16, 2024. The Wall Street Journal. Kate Linthicum. March 13, 2024. The Los Angeles Times. Celine Alkhaldi et al. March 8, 2024. CNN. December 3, 2023. Velshi on MSNBC. Rep. Mike Gallagher. November 1, 2023. The Free Press. Mater Dei High School. TikTok September 20, 2021. BBC. The Bill Audio Sources House Floor March 13, 2024 Clips 19:00 Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): There was there were some people who were legitimately concerned that this was an overly broad bill and they got an exclusion written into the bill that I want to read. It says the term "covered company" does not include an entity that operates a website or application, whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. Why is this exception in the bill? Why did somebody feel like they needed this exception if the bill itself only covers social media applications that foreign adversaries are running now? 21:15 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): While this bill establishes a national security framework that could apply to other applications, much of the public attention is focused on TikTok. 23:15 Rep. Michael Gallagher (R-WI): Mr. Speaker, TikTok is a threat to our national security because it is owned by ByteDance, which does the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. We know this because ByteDance’s leadership says so and because Chinese law requires it. This bill, therefore, would force TikTok to break up with the Chinese Communist Party. It does not apply to American companies. It only applies to companies subject to the controlof foreign adversaries defined by Congress. It says nothing about election interference and cannot be turned against any American social media platform. It does not impact websites in general. The only impacted sites are those associated with foreign adversary apps, such as TikTok.com. It can never be used to penalize individuals. The text explicitly prohibits that. It cannot be used to censor speech. It takes no position at all on the content of speech, only foreign adversary control of what is becoming the dominant news platform for Americans under 30. 25:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): This divestment requirement is not new. It's not without precedent. When the app Grindr, a popular LGBTQ app, was acquired by a Chinese company, and the United States government determined that sensitive data of LGBTQ members of the military and US government officials got into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, they required divestment. This happened quickly. Why? Because Grindr was a very valuable social media company. The same is true with regard to TikTok, and there will be no disruption to users, just as there was with Grindr. 27:25 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Last week, under the leadership of the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member, they brought up for consideration our bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On the morning of that vote, TikTok, delivered a push notification and a pop up to thousands of users across the country. They used geolocation data targeting minor children to then force them to call congressional offices in order to continue using the app. And in doing so, these children called and they asked the question: what is Congress? And what is a Congressman? This influence campaign illustrates the need for this bill. 29:20 Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): The people sponsoring this bill today claim that the real issue is ownership. But who owns this company? It's not 100% owned by Bytedance. 60% of it's owned by investors, including American investors. 20% are owned by the founders and 20% are owned by over 7000 employees. The company's headquarters is not in China, it's in Singapore. And the American user data isn't housed in China. It's housed in Texas, controlled by a database owned by Oracle. 30:20 Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): So if we think we can address the privacy concerns, what's left to address? Frankly, content moderation. Remember, before Elon Musk bought the crime scene at Twitter, it was all a conspiracy theory that these algorithms were silencing and canceling people. You guys are crazy. Now when Elon Musk bought Twitter, he did keep it operating with 80% fewer employees. But what we found is a lot of the employees were trying to do content moderation, shape who sees what and how they see it, which algorithms are used, how does it promote certain people and, and filter others? So really, what you're saying here is if you're not fully engaged with America's three letter agencies in content moderation, we plan to 'TikTok' you. And this bill isn't just limited to TikTok. It's a coercive power that can be applied to other apps like Telegram, Tor. Things that provide privacy would be targeted by this bill. 34:20 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): First of all, this is not a ban on TikTok. I'm a grandmother of teenagers, I understand the entertainment value, the educational value, communication value, the business value for some businesses on this. This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. Its an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic Tac Toe. A winner, a winner. 41:00 Brett Guthrie (R-KY): I was asked, does this just affect TikTok? And no, it's any foreign adversary, or any app that is owned, controlled or unduly influenced by any foreign adversary. We must protect our national security and help keep America's private data out of the hands of our foreign adversaries. I urge support of this bill, and I yield back. 51:55 Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN): After hearing from national security experts last week, it is clear the prolific use of media platforms controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries poses a danger to our country. 53:15 Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA): This bill would greatly expand the Executive's authority to ban tech companies with zero congressional oversight. I cannot sign a blank check to some future president who would easily and dangerously weaponize this legislation to profit in silence. 55:20 Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): We aren't banning a company, as the high paid lobbyists for Bytedance - which is owned by China - would lead you to believe. We aren't infringing on constitutionally protected speech or growing the size of government. All we're saying is, Break up with the Chinese Communist Party. 1:02:30 Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY): Who's going to be prosecuted by this bill? Is it Bytedance or TikTok? Will they be taken to court? No. I mean, they're the target of this, but how do you elicit or effect a ban on them? By prosecuting Americans? The only way you can ban TikTok and the other companies from being here is to say what this bill says, which is the government will bring a civil action suit against you, if you so much as host them here. If you have an app store that allows them to be here, you're an American or an American company and you will be the target of this bill. Those are the only people who can be pursued under this bill and I know it's in order to go after TikTok, or so they say. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD288: Government Funding 101

6 mars 2024 | 42 min

As we enter another round of government funding drama, let’s learn the basics. In this episode, we examine how the process is supposed to work, spot the tell tale signs that something has gone wrong, and decipher all of the DC wonky words that make the appropriations process seem more complicated than it really is. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Appropriations February 8, 2023. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations. Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending FiscalData.Treasury.gov. Updated October 24, 2022. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Government Shutdown February 26, 2024. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Omnibus Bills Andrew Taylor. December 22, 2020. AP News. Earmarks February 9, 2005. Taxpayers for Common Sense. Retrieved from the Wayback Machine version from October 25, 2008. What Happens Next Jamie Dupree. March 5, 2024. Regular Order. Audio Sources House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense January 12, 2022 Witness: Mike McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Clips 29:51 Mike McCord: First, as I believe you’re all aware a full year CR, we reduce our funding level below what we requested and what we believe we need. On the surface at the department level as a whole, the reduction to our accounts would appear to be about a billion dollars below our request, which would be significant. Even if that was the only impact. The actual reduction in practice will be much greater. Because we would have significant funding that’s misaligned, trapped or frozen in the wrong places and unusable because we don’t have the tools or flexibilities to realign funds on anything like the scam we would need to fix all the problems that the chiefs are going to describe. 30:27 Mike McCord: I know all of you are very familiar with the fact that virtually all military construction projects in each year’s budget including the FY 22 budget are new starts that cannot be executed under a CR. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD287: War Money

29 februari 2024 | 98 min

It’s been four months since President Biden requested over $100 billion in war money for Israel and Ukraine and the Senate has now passed a bill that would provide most of the money. In this episode, we examine the events that lead up to and have occurred since President Biden’s address to the nation, and analyze the Senate bill along with its possible paths to becoming law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes October 7 Attack Aluf Benn. February 21, 2024. Haaretz. Liza Rozovsky. January 6, 2024. Haaretz. Amos Harel. November 27, 2023. Haaretz. November 18, 2023. Josh Breiner. Haaretz. Hagar Shezaf and Jack Khoury. October 6, 2023. Haaretz. Aftermath of the October 7 Attack Ran Shimoni et al. February 24, 2024. Haaretz. October 20, 2023. White House Briefing Room. Michael D. Shear. October 19, 2023. The New York Times. October 19, 2023. Democracy Now! History of Palestine and Israel Bernard Avishai. February 2024. Harper’s Magazine. October 20, 2023. The World. Directed by Erin Axelman and Sam Eilertsen, produced by Daniel J. Chalfen, Nadia Saah, and Erin Axelman. 2023. OCHA. June 2022. UNICEF. Rashid Khalidi. Macmillan Audio: 2020. Directed by Abby Martin. 2019. Empire Files. Ian Black. Tantor Audio: 2018. Darryl Cooper. 2015-2016. Martyrmade Podcast. April 16, 2015. Defense for Children International - Palestine. March 2012. Visualizing Palestine. Balfour Declaration Zena Al Tahhan. November 2, 2018. Al Jazeera. Lord Arthur James Balfour. November 2, 1917. Jewish Virtual Library. Vanishing Palestine Retrieved on February 27, 2024. Wikipedia: the free Encyclopedia. October 11, 2023. BBC. Hagar Shezaf. December 11, 2020. Haaretz. May 12, 2020. Human Rights Watch. Mitchell Bard. Jewish Virtual Library. Al Jazeera. Alex Hartman et al. December 9, 2004. Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. 2003. Creation of Israel 1947. April 1983. United Nations. Lebanon Rania Abouzeid. October 21, 2023. The New Yorker. Tom Perry et al. October 18, 2022. Reuters. Dahiya Doctrine December 7, 2012. Institute for Middle East Understanding. Gabi Siboni. October 2, 2008. INSS Insight. November 23, 2006. UN General Assembly Human Rights Council. Gaza Death Toll AJLabs. Retrieved on February 27, 2024. Al Jazeera. Amna Nawaz and Sonia Kopelev. February 9, 2024. PBS NewsHour. Linda Dayan. December 26, 2023. Haaretz. June 23, 2015. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Caabu. Rory McCarthy. September 15, 2009. The Guardian. Post-October 7 Land Grab Henriette Chacar. February 23, 2024. Reuters. Julia Frankel. February 23, 2024. AP News. Liza Rozovsky. February 15, 2024. Haaretz. Nir Hasson and Rachel Fink. January 28, 2024. Haaretz. Abdelraouf Arnaout. January 3, 2024. Anadolu Agency. Itai Weiss. December 27, 2023. Haaretz. Yitzhak Benbaji et al. November 30, 2023. Haaretz. Isaac Chotiner. November 11, 2023. The New Yorker. Uploaded by LocalCall. October 13, 2023. Scribd. Gas Rights Walid Abuhelal. February 20, 2024. Middle East Eye. Israeli Nukes Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Ceasefire Amy Spiro et al. November 30, 2023. The Times of Israel. Omar Shakir. November 29, 2023. Human Rights Watch. The Destruction of Gaza James Mackenzie and Nidal Al-Mughrabi. February 15, 2024. Reuters. Mithil Aggarwal and Yasmine Salam. January 18, 2024. NBC News. Yahya R. Sarraj. December 24, 2023. The New York Times. Gabrielle Tétrault-Farber. December 21, 2023. Reuters. U.S. Aid to Israel Matthew Lee. December 29, 2023. PBS NewsHour. Michael D. Shear and Karoun Demirjian. October 20, 2023. The New York Times. Limiting Aid to Gaza Katie Polglase and Muhammad Darwish. February 21, 2024. CNN. Rachel Fink. February 7, 2024. Haaretz. Lindsey Hilsum. February 5, 2024. Channel 4 News. Jessica Le Masurier. February 5, 2024. France 24. Netanyahu Rejects Two State Solution January 19, 2024. DW. Why Does the U.S. Government Support Israel? OpenSecrets. Real American History Howard Zinn. Harper Audio: 2009. Ukraine Anatol Lieven. February 24, 2024. Time. Border Crisis Jamie Dupree. February 15, 2024. Regular Order. Caitlin Yilek. February 14, 2024. CBS News. Kelly Garrity. February 5, 2024. Politico. Bills Audio Sources February 11, 2024 Bernie Sanders on X October 19, 2023 C-SPAN Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD286: Prolonging the War in Ukraine

17 december 2023 | 116 min

Congress is probably going to send approximately $50 billion more, most of that for weapons, to continue the war in Ukraine. In November, high ranking officials from the State Department testified about how the Biden administration intends to use our money and why. In this episode, hear the highlights of their testimony and decide for yourself if you think their goals are worth sacrificing more American money and Ukrainian lives. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes WTF is the World Trade System? Naomi Klein. Picador: 2008. Nicole Narea. October 13, 2023. Vox. Offshore Technology. Ukraine: How We Got Here Branko Marcetic. February 7, 2022. Jacobin. Stanley Reed and Andrew E. Kramer. November 5, 2013. The New York Times. Marieke Ploegmakers. February 5, 2012. All About Feed. Arseniy Yatsenyuk Official Website. Retrieved on December 16, 2023. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. The Ukraine War, by the Map Defence Intelligence, UK Ministry of Defense. December 15, 2023. GlobalSecurity.org. Visual Journalism Team. November 16, 2023. BBC News. Josh Holder. September 28, 2023. The New York Times. @war_mapper. December 31, 2022. GlobalSecurity.org. U.S. Support for Ukraine Karoun Demirjian. December 6, 2023. The New York Times. The IMF in Ukraine Oleksandra Betliy. May 5, 2023. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March 31, 2023. International Monetary Fund. Estelle Nilsson-Julien and Ilaria Federico. March 5, 2023. Euronews. December 21, 2022. International Monetary Fund. Diplomacy Connor Echols. December 1, 2023. Responsible Statecraft. Seymour Hersh. December 1, 2023. Seymour Hersh on Substack. Olena Roshchina. November 24, 2023. Ukrainska Pravda. The Toll of War Jonathan Landay. December 12, 2023. Reuters. John Mazerolle. December 8, 2023. CBC News. Inae Oh. November 8, 2023. Mother Jones. Oleg Sukhov. September 28, 2023. The Kyiv Independent. Israel-Palestine Ian Black. Narrated by Michael Page. Tantor Audio: 2018. Darryl Cooper. The Martyrmade Podcast. Audio Sources November 8, 2023 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: , Assistant Secretary of State, European and Eurasian Affairs , Assistant Secretary of State, Energy Resources , Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Clips 1:55 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): The supplemental funding will strengthen governance and anti-corruption systems. It will improve the resilience of our economies and our energy supply. It will support efforts to come out of the other side of this. We're ready for Ukraine to join EU and also NATO. But this investment in Ukraine goes far beyond its borders. By degrading Russia's military capabilities, we're also degrading the capabilities of those who Russia works with, like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. 10:30 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): First Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O'Brien. Assistant Secretary O'Brien assumed his role just last month after serving as sanctions coordinator at the State Department. He is a former career employee of the department receiving numerous performance awards and serve to previous US administration's as Special Presidential Envoy for hostages and for the Balkans. 11:00 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): The next will be Assistant Secretary for Energy Resources, Jeffrey R. Pyatt. No stranger to this committee, career diplomat Assistant Secretary Pyatt has been in his current role since September 2022. He served as US Ambassador to Greece and Ukraine. He has held numerous leadership positions through out the department and has won numerous awards. 11:25 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): And our third witness is Assistant Administrator Erin McKee, who serves as the Assistant Administrator in the Bureau of Europe and Eurasia at USAID. Prior to this position, she was the US Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and to the Solomon Islands. Prior to her Ambassador appointments, as a member of the Senior Foreign Service she served in numerous leadership roles throughout USAID and the embassies abroad. Before her US government career she developed private sector experience including throughout the former Soviet Union. 14:40 James O'Brien: This is around the Black Sea and Crimea. Ukraine has, through its own ingenuity and with weapons that have been provided, loosened Russia's grip. Russia tried to blockade the ability of Ukraine to export, but now Ukraine is starting to export more grain, more metals. And this is enabling it to pay for more of its war itself. So just a few numbers as we go through this. Ukraine is hoping to get about 8 million tons of grain and metals out through the Black Sea over the course of the next year. If it does that, it will provide about $5-6 billion more for its tax base than it has now. That helps to make up the shortfall that our supplemental will cover for the meantime. But it also then provides the employment for millions of its citizens to work within Ukraine. Now, that is a path to victory where we help Ukraine by providing assistance to have its energy grid strengthened, air defense over its employment centers, and the export routed needs so that it is able to fight this fight over the long term and to hold Russia off thereafter. 15:50 James O'Brien: The military assistance in the supplemental is about $45 billion. That goes to acquire American equipment that Ukraine will then use to pay for American service people to support Ukraine and to pay other countries to acquire American equipment after they provide equipment to Ukraine. 16:05 James O'Brien: The direct budget support that we provide to Ukraine enables Ukraine to put all of its tax dollars to support the war. Ukraine pays for about 60% of the costs of this war right now. The direct budget support pays for hundreds of thousands of educators, first responders, firefighters, and health care professionals to work within Ukraine. 16:55 James O'Brien: The next question is, who's with us? We have more than 40 countries. They provide much more assistance to Ukraine than we do. It's about $91 billion to our $70 billion so far. They've hosted 4.5 million Ukrainian refugees at a cost of around $18 billion. They are proposing another $50 billion in assistance just from the European Union. 17:30 James O'Brien: Right now, Ukrainians are willing to do this job because it's in their territory. If we abandon them, then somebody else is going to have to do this job later and it's likely to be us. So I'd rather confront Russia and its destabilizing attitudes right here, right now, and we can finish the job with the supplemental that we've proposed for your consideration. 18:45 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: For Ukraine, this coming winter promises to be even more challenging than the last. Ukraine's generation capacity has degraded about 50% since the start of the war. Ukrainian energy workers have labored day and night, often under fire, to repair, restore, and harden grid and generation facilities, often by cannibalizing parts from elsewhere. But most spare parts by now have been consumed, and Russia has recently resumed its bombardment of power plants and refineries, including just this morning in eastern Ukraine. 20:50 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: The World Bank has estimated that after last winter, Ukraine needed at least $411 billion to rebuild its infrastructure. That was eight months ago. Every day that number grows. Electricity grid damage alone amounted to $10 billion in 2022. Ukraine's economic future depends on investment by the private sector, and energy is key to unlocking that industrial recovery. 21:25 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: American energy companies like Halliburton, GE, and EQT have been active partners in this effort, providing vital equipment to Ukraine and actively exploring future commercial opportunities. We're working together to build a better future for and with Ukraine -- modern, cleaner, and with a more decentralized power sector that is fully integrated with Europe, even serving as a power exporter to the rest of the European Union. 22:10 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: After the full scale invasion, US LNG producers stepped up to surge supplies to Europe, as our allies turned away from Russia as an energy source. Since 2022, US exporters have supplied the EU with approximately 90 million tons of LNG -- three times as much as the next largest supplier. Last year, 70% of US LNG exports went to Europe. Europe's shift away from Russian energy has happened much faster than predicted, and marks a permanent shift in the International Energy map. 25:30 Erin McKee: In response to the immediate crisis, USAID has provided nearly $2 billion in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since February of 2022. The generosity of the American people has supplied emergency health care, agriculture and energy support to Ukraine's most vulnerable populations. And thanks to the Congressional appropriations, USAID disbursed reliable, sustained direct budget support to the Ukrainian government, along with unprecedented levels of oversight. This enabled first responders, health care workers, teachers and others to continue their vital work and sustain Ukraine's economy and institutions while they defend their country's freedom and sovereignty. 26:10 Erin McKee: To respond to Russia's weaponization of hunger, USAID launched the Agriculture Resilience Initiative to keep farmers afloat. USAID also works very closely with the private sector to improve Ukraine's energy security and transform Ukraine's energy sector into a modern engine of growth. Side by side with our agriculture and energy efforts is USAID's support to small and medium enterprises, helping Ukraine increase jobs and generate revenue. 26:45 Erin McKee: At this time, there is no funding left for direct budget support. Without further appropriations, the government of Ukraine would need to use emergency measures such as printing money or not paying critical salaries, which could lead to hyperinflation and severely damage the war effort. USAID has also exhausted all of its supplemental humanitarian assistance funds. Additional funding is critical in the face of what remains an enormous need. If Congress does not approve supplemental funding, our partner organizations in Ukraine would have to either reduce the number of people getting this humanitarian assistance by up to 75% or suspend our humanitarian programs entirely. 27:30 Erin McKee: USAID also looks to the future to building resilient infrastructure and institutions that will support Ukraine's path towards European Union integration. For decades, USAID has buttressed Ukraine's progress towards transparent, inclusive and accountable governance. The United States continues to help Ukraine carry out judicial reform, institutionalized transparent financial systems, and respond to the people of Ukraine's zero tolerance for corruption. 33:15 Erin McKee: They have not skipped a beat in advancing the reform agenda. The EU report just came out this morning and both Ukraine and Moldova, and a variety of other countries, received support for continuing and opening chapters of recession talks. That's because our support to strengthening and deepening the institutions fighting corruption in Ukraine have received the top priority from the President. They had to pass and meet conditionality that we put on our direct budget support and did so without blinking. So while they're fighting a war and fighting for their survival, they are 100% dedicated to ensuring that the political economy model that they inherited during the Soviet Union is dismantled, which reflects the will of the Ukrainian people. 34:35 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: And one of the real success stories amid the tragedy of this war is that Europe has turned decisively away from its dependence, up until 2022, on Russian gas in particular. I see that as a permanent change in the landscape. It's reflected in the billions of dollars that European countries have invested in regasification facilities. It's reflected in the contracts that are being signed with American LNG producers. And it's also reflected in Europe's renewed and doubled commitment to accelerating the pace of its energy transition. So ironically, Putin's weaponization of his energy resource has induced Europe to break its vulnerability there and I think that is a permanent change in the landscape. That is also a positive benefit for American energy producers in our leadership on the energy transition. 35:55 Sen. James Risch (R-ID): I want to talk about the nuclear reactors we have in the United States, of which there are 95, give or take a few. Would you tell the committee, please, where does the fuel come from to operate these nuclear facilities? Geoffrey R. Pyatt: So, Ranking Member, about 20% of the fuel that operates our nuclear fleet here in the United States still comes from Russia. The President has included in his latest supplemental request for about $2.2 billion to help rebuild the nuclear enrichment capacity that we need here in the United States to end that dependency. And the administration has also stated its support for a ban on the import of Russian nuclear fuel. 43:30 Erin McKee: Right now Ukraine is able to spend all of their national budget in the fight. They are paying their soldiers salaries, they are dedicated to defeating Putin on the front lines. That means they don't have any resources to take care of their people and govern, which is as vital to keep up the unity of purpose and the resilience that we've seen from the Ukrainian people, because they're all in, both on the civilian and the military side. So the types of services that would be suspended are first responders who rush into the building and save lives, medical care to make sure that inoculations stay up so that the Ukrainian population stays healthy, particularly children's routine immunizations. We heard reports of polio outbreaks and some other concerns during the early days of the mass emigration of folks fleeing the conflict. We also are supporting teachers and continuing education so that they don't lose a generation as a result of Putin's attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure so that the kids can stay in school, and that those families — Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE): Am I correct that the direct budget support requested gradually goes down over the next year, as the economy becomes more vibrant and we assess Ukraine is able to generate more revenue? Erin McKee: Correct. The direct budget support and their fiscal stability is also vital for the IMF program and other donors stepping in. Our leadership in this space -- and yes, we were first -- unlocked the other support that we've seen mobilized from the EU and other donors, as well as boosting the confidence in the multilaterals to be able to contribute to Ukraine's economic stability, which is as vital as winning the war. If their economy collapses, Putin will have won. 47:55 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): As Harvard's Graham Allison points out, if Putin is forced to choose between humiliating defeat on the one hand and escalating the level of destruction, there's every reason to believe he chooses the latter. There's a great deal of evidence that the war in Ukraine has come to a stalemate. Even Ukraine's Commander in Chief of the armed services has admitted as much. In Graham Allison's view, the Ukraine war has escalated far enough to see how bad things would become if we end up in a world where nuclear weapons are used. Allison believes that where we are now, both for Putin's Russia and for the Biden-led US and the Western alliance, it's time to search for an off ramp for all the parties. What is being done at the State Department to search for an off ramp. James O'Brien: Thank you, Senator. A few points. I mean, I can speak to the foreign policy implications. My belief is if we don't stand with Ukraine now, we'll be spending much more on defense in the future. Much of this supplemental goes to reinvest in the United States, so far from rot and ruin, we're actually shoring up the foundations in our energy sector as Assistant Secretary Pyatt — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): So your argument is that war and funding war around the world is good for our armaments industry. James O'Brien: I'm saying this supplemental is good for our economy — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): For the armaments industry. So really, it's a justification of war. To me, that's sort of reprehensible -- and this is coming from my side as well -- the idea that "Oh, glory be, the war's really not that bad. Broken windows are not that bad, because we pay people to fix them. Broken countries are not so bad, because hey, look, the armaments industry is gonna get billions of dollars out of this." I think that's a terrible argument. I wish y'all would go back to your freedom arguments or something. But the idea that you're going to enrich the armaments manufacturers, I think is reprehensible. James O'Brien: Well, Senator, I'm not making the argument war is good. I'm making the argument, in this case, war is necessary. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): And that we can make a little profit on the side. It's not so bad since the armaments guys who make a lot of profit on this, right. James O'Brien: Senator, I think you're proposing a kind of false choice that Ieither have to say that or say nothing. What I'm saying is that our economy rests on a foundation of innovation. And in the supplemental, we're investing in our energy sector — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): But the money is borrowed. We're borrowing the money. We don't have it. We don't have a pot of money. So what you're arguing is, in essence, that we borrow the money from China, we send it to Ukraine, Ukraine, sends it back to buy arms from us, and that's a win-win. How do we win when we're borrowing money to pay people. See this is this false sort of argument that "oh, look, we'll create five jobs for every dollar we spend," but we're borrowing the money. It doesn't make any sense. It's coming from somewhere where it would be a productive use, into the use of basically fomenting a war and continuing on a war. James O'Brien: No, that's not the choice in front of us, Senator. And I'm sorry that you feel that that's the way you want to frame it. The choice in front of us is do we invest in the capacities that allow this war to be won? Those include capacities in energy, in defense, in IT, and they include — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): Let's get away from funding the armaments people. You know, I'm not for that. But the original question is, what are you doing to develop an off ramp? You know, when I listen to your presentations, it sounds like the Department of War, I don't hear the Department of diplomacy in front of me. Where are the diplomats? Is anybody talking about negotiation? Do you really believe that Ukraine is gonna push Russia out of out of Ukraine, they're gonna push them out of Crimea, push them out of the East, and that Zelenskyy's is position, "we will not negotiate till they're gone from Ukraine," is viable? And that there's not going to have to be some negotiation beforehand? If you believe that, though, the meat grinder continues and Ukraine will be in utter destruction and tens of thousands more people will die if there is no negotiation. You would think that as a superpower, we would be involved somewhat with encouraging negotiation. But I've heard nothing from you, and nothing from anyone in your administration, frankly, that talks about negotiating. James O'Brien: Well, Senator, then I hope you would sit down and talk with me about what we're doing in this regard. Here, I'll give you a little sense of it. All wars end with a negotiation. We've made clear we'll do that with Ukraine, not over Ukraine's head. It takes two parties to negotiate the end of a war. President Putin is not serious about negotiating the end of the war. He has said he wants to wait and see what happens in November 2024. We're preparing for that eventuality so we can have a negotiation that will actually stick as opposed to the track record of broken agreements that President Putin has made with a whole range of his neighbors up until now. So that's successful diplomacy, not mere diplomacy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There are actually some who say we're back to about where we started as far as negotiating and tens of thousands of people have died on both sides, and we haven't been successful. But I still hear only war and I don't hear diplomacy. James O'Brien: No but I think what we're looking at is successful diplomacy. I just spent last weekend with 66 countries talking about the basis of a successful peace in Ukraine. Russia didn't show up. That, again, is the problem. You don't have a willing partner on the other side, so simply saying that there must be talks is -- you're asking for a monologue, not diplomacy. 55:00 Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): You know, I'm really struck by the parallel to the journey of Chamberlain to Munich to say, "Okay, Hitler, you can take a third of Czechoslovakia" and then he declared peace in our time, under the assumption that somehow this would not whet Hitler's appetite. Did Chamberlain's strategy work? James O'Brien: No. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): Will this strategy now, of us bailing on Ukraine to appease Putin, work? James O'Brien: No, it'll invite more aggression. 1:01:40 Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE): Do you think we should condition US aid to prevent US tax dollars from supporting PRC-owned or controlled entities from providing the reconstruction? James O'Brien: Senator, we do. That's why it's so important to have the supplemental so that we remain in the game and can set the conditions that make it impossible for opaque, illegitimate contractors like the Chinese to enter. And I know my colleagues can speak at some length about how in energy, telecomms, and other sectors we do exactly that. But if we're not there, then we can't we can't provide the guarantees you want. 1:05:35 James O'Brien: There are about $2.2 billion to go to both the energy supply and to the economic activity that's needed for Ukraine to begin to repair its access to the outside world. That's also important to us. When Russia invaded Ukraine, grain prices went up six times in many places around the world, because Ukraine is an incredibly important part of the global grain trade. The work that AID does to help Ukrainian farmers get their products to market, in the supplemental, the $100 million that is for demining will help farmers get their product to market. All of that directly benefits the markets in which our consumers are a part. So if we do all that, if we can get them to about pre-war export levels, that's an extra $6 billion a year in tax revenue just from the exports, as well as what the industries pay and what happens around the society. Now, Secretary Pritzker, and she should come and testify this herself, she's doing an outstanding job at building a strategy that lets us focus our efforts in key places, so that Ukraine's economy will begin to work and contribute to the global economy, even while this war is going on. All of that works together to make sure that Ukraine can succeed and has the leverage needed when we get to a negotiation, as Senator Paul wants. 1:13:55 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: So I would point out that the greatest threat to the energy grid today are the Shahed drones, which Russia is now beginning to industrialize the production of those. We can talk about that in a classified setting, but there is a direct Iran-Russia nexus in the attacks on Ukraine's energy system. 1:24:10 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: We are working as hard as we can to accelerate that trend. We do that through two mechanisms. One is by accelerating our energy transition, both here in the United States, but also globally, as the Biden administration has done through the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. But the other aspect of this is what we are doing systematically to reduce Russia's future energy revenue. Just last week, for instance, we leveled new sanctions against a project in the in the Arctic, Arctic LNG 2, which is Novatek's flagship LNG project, which Novatek set in motion with the aspiration of developing Russia as the largest LNG exporter in the world. Our objective is to kill that project, and we're doing that through our sanctions, working with our partners in the G7 and beyond. 1:26:00 James O'Brien: Russia is losing its lucrative markets. That's what got it rich enough to afford this war. It's losing out in the sectors of innovation that are going to drive economic development in the future. So we look at this and say, "Does it put pressure on Putin to get to the table?" Well, yes, it does. It's going to take a little time. He started the war with 640 billion in a rainy day fund. By the start of this year, despite record profits last year, he was down around 580, we immobilized 300 of that, and he spent down further from there. So that gives them a year, two years maybe, of run room on that rainy day fund that all came from selling oil and gas. So that's gone. The second thing is that we don't see Russia able to play in the sectors that are going to drive innovation and economic growth in the future. The areas of quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, the energy transition, including the new nuclear technologies that are coming on board, and Senator Risch, your work on this I really appreciate, because Russia entangled countries in these long term networks of corruption, with generation-long Rosatom contracts. We're now competing for those again, and taking those sectors away from Russia. That changes the long term prospect from what it was. The result of all this is we anticipate that Russia's GDP is going to be at least 20% smaller by 2030 than it would be if Putin had not started this war. So it's a long term strategic loss for him, and it creates a great opportunity for us in a number of important sectors. 1:35:30 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): I understand, and this is not critical. I agree that we can't allow borders to be changed unilaterally and we have to stand with our allies. I'm not diminishing any of those things. But those arguments are too vague. They make sense here, but I'm just telling you they're too vague. This notion that we need to do whatever it takes for however long it takes, is also misguided. Not because that's not necessarily what we need to do, but because that's not going to be enough for people who are asking these questions. I would just say if you had an opportunity, any of you three, or all you three to talk to someone, say someone that came up to me a week ago and said, "Why are we still putting all this money in Ukraine. I hate Putin, I hate what he's done, but we've got all these other things domestically and in other parts of the world that are more important, including China, and now what's happening in the Middle East. How are we going to be spending $60 billion every six months? For how long? Given the debt that we already have?" What would you say to them? And how would you explain to them that this fits into their national interest in that perspective I've just outlined? James O'Brien: That's really well framed, Senator, so I'll do my best here. I think the first thing I'd say is you got to shore up your own base. If we're going to confront China over the next decades, it's 1.4 billion people, that's looking to write the rules that the world economy will run on. We go at them with a coalition of 50-odd countries, Europe is about 600-700 million of that, we're 350 million. With that already, we're set to compete really effectively. Ukraine, though, is a challenge by Putin trying to fray that foundation. So we have to shore that up if we're going to have the heft to compete with China over time. The battle over Ukraine also allows us to reinvigorate our own industrial base, we're creating new energy technologies and putting them in place around the world. We're building new defense technologies, the work that's being done in IT, all of that's included in this supplemental, and that's going to make us better able to defend Taiwan, to work in the South China Sea, than we have otherwise. The final point I'd make is, this is the wrong time to walk away because Ukraine's winning. It's already taken back half the territory Putin seized since February 2022. It opened up the Black Sea grain lanes that Putin tried to shut down in July, did that mostly with its own creativity around a whole set of interesting drones and other technologies that are going to contribute to our security as Ukraine gets closer to NATO. So those are all reasons you don't walk away when you're partway through the job. 1:41:10 Geoffrey R. Pyatt: Ukraine is not a charity case. In economic and development terms, it's an opportunity. Developing that opportunity depends on restoring a level of peace. But as we look to the future, you're going to have a Europe which has decoupled from Russian energy supplies, which means that there's a hole of about 130 BCM per year in energy supply that Europe is going to have to fill. Over the short term, some of that is American LNG, but that's a very expensive option. Ukraine has fantastic resources on wind, on solar, on biomass. It has Europe's second largest civil nuclear industry. It has developed and has demonstrated an extraordinary technological acuity. Just look at how clever Ukrainian soldiers have been in the application of drone technology. These are all the skill sets that Ukraine will need to prosper as a member of the European Union. My colleague, Assistant Administrator McKee, referred to the statement which European President Vanderlaan delivered today welcoming the significant progress that Ukraine has made on its reforms, and her and the Commission's determination to move ahead with Ukraine's accession to the European Union. And I would say as somebody who served as an American ambassador in the EU for six years, what Ukraine represents is a demographically young population, a population which is fantastically committed to the values of the European Union. Ukraine is the only place in the world where people have fought and died under the flag of the EU for the values that are represented in the European constitutions. So I think these are the investments in the leadership that Secretary Pritzker is providing to help our companies and companies around the world begin to make plans for the day after and to work with Ukrainians to keep pushing forward the reforms, which are fundamental to creating the environment where American energy companies, renewable energy companies can come into Ukraine, where we can use Ukraine to help to fill the huge challenges that our global supply chain faces. In the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the center of Soviet metallurgy, the center of Soviet petrochemicals industries, all of those latent skills are still there. You talked about nuclear, Ukraine has a company in Kharkiv, Turboatom, which is one of the few facilities in all of Europe that has the industrial capacity to produce the large steel enclosures that are part of building modern nuclear reactors. So I applaud your focus on this and I know I speak for all three of us and how systematically we're focused on trying to lay the foundation for that better future that the Ukrainian people so richly deserve. 1:53:55 James O'Brien: Ukraine has won back 50% of the territory Russia took since February of 2022. The second piece that's important: Putin is playing a waiting game, like many Muscovite rulers before him. So it's difficult to get a decisive battle. So what we need is what's in the supplemental that has the ability to fight this fight over some time, and we do see real success. So in the Black Sea, Russia attempted to stop Ukraine from exporting. In July, exports were down 2-2.5 million tons; they're already more than doubled, and expect to see them go up substantially more. That's because of what Ukraine has done with its technology and its new weapons systems, more of which would be provided by the supplemental. February 4, 2014 On Demand News on YouTube Speakers: Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, 2013-2017 Geoffrey Pyatt, United States Ambassador to Ukraine, 2013-2016 Clips Victoria Nuland: Good. So I don’t think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, I mean I guess, in terms of him not going into the government, just sort of letting him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of, sort of, the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this. Victoria Nuland: I think Yatz [Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy with the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy. What he needs is Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] And Tyahnybok On the outside, he needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] Going in he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk it’s just not gonna work. Geoffrey Pyatt: We want to get someone out here with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych. We’ll probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things fall into place. Victoria Nuland: So on that piece, Jeff, I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me saying “you need Biden,” and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deets to stick, Biden’s willing. Geoffrey Pyatt: Great. December 19, 2013 The Atlantic Council Speaker: John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona, 1987-2018 Clips 16:45 Sen. John McCain: If Ukraine’s political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend—from holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health and sustainable development. Decisions such as these are for Ukrainians to make—no one else—and if they request our assistance, we should provide it where possible. Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensable for Ukraine’s future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. April 20, 1994 Southern Center for International Studies Speaker: Arthur Dunkel, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, 1980-1993 Clips 26:55 Arthur Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the centrally planned world; the centrally planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension – political tension and even worse than that." Music by Editing Production Assistance

Bonus! December Preview with Justin Robert Young

5 december 2023 | 45 min

CD285: The Indicteds: Rep. George Santos and Sen. Robert Menendez

20 november 2023 | 85 min

Two members of Congress, one from each side of the aisle and each branch of Congress, are currently under criminal indictment, yet are steadfastly clinging to their roles as lawmakers. In this episode, we’ve got the dirt straight from the criminal indictments of Rep. George Santos of New York and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Sen. Bob Menendez The Indictment Egypt Aysha Bagchi and Josh Meyer. November 13, 2023. USA Today. Mark Mazzetti and Vivian Yee. October 14, 2023. The New York Times. Larry Neumeister. October 12, 2023. AP. Nicole Hong et al. October 1, 2023. The New York Times. Jeremy M. Sharp. May 2, 2023. Congressional Research Service. Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam October 24, 2020. BBC News. September 2, 2020. The New York Times. Marriage Nina Burleigh. October 31, 2023. Intelligencer. Previous Indictment Nick Corasaniti and Nate Schweber. November 16, 2017. The New York Times. April 1, 2015. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Initial Appointment to Senate Marek Fuchs. December 9, 2005. The New York Times. Rep. George Santos The Indictment House Ethics Committee Investigation November 16, 2023. House Ethics Committee. November 9, 2023. House Ethics Committee, Investigative Subcommittee. Brazil Fraud Case Andrew DePietro. October 21, 2022. Forbes. Expulsion Attempts Kevin Freking. November 17, 2023. PBS NewsHour. Kevin Freking and Stephen Groves. November 2, 2023. AP. Wealthiest Districts Andrew DePietro. October 21, 2022. Forbes. IRS Doesn’t Fight Dark Money Maya Miller. April 18, 2019. ProPublica. Bills Audio Sources October 28, 2023 Chat Box with David Cruz Clips 3:25 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): You know, I have drawn from my personal credit union savings account, for the better part of 30 years, $400 every week in cash. And while that may seem old fashioned, some people may think of it as crazy, the reality is that the government has those records. They have the accounts that show that and they chose not to use it. So, you know, this is why I look forward to being in a position to actually speak to these issues, so that New Jerseyans will have a different set of facts than the ones they have right now. 5:20 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I was not barred from going into an intelligence briefing. I still have all of my intelligence credentials. 7:20 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I have not missed a beat. I've been here for votes and for hearings, and for pursuing the issues that are important to the people in New Jersey. 11:35 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I still serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which gives me a perch on all of these global issues, and I am pursuing them in the same way as I did before. The difference is that I am not leading the [Senate Foreign Relations] Committee, but I am very much active in the Committee pursuing the things that I care about for New Jersey. 15:25 David Cruz: So the considerations that Egypt received, including getting a green light from your committee, the quid pro quo as it were, was Egypt behaving better in exchange for arms sales and other considerations? Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): Each consideration depended upon the nature of the sale, whether it was for example, defensive equipment, whether it was equipment for the Sinai, where they are playing a vital role for security with Israel, which everybody -- Democrats and Republicans -- have called for. So these followed the traditional uses of both foreign aid and arms sales in a way to ensure that the US national security interests was pursued and that's simply the case. 16:15 David Cruz: And in the case of one of your co-defendants receiving a contract to certify halal — Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I can't answer for my co-defendant, you'll have to ask him. David Cruz: Well, the question is, was it your relations with Egyptian officials that helped ease the way for him to get that contract? Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): David, there's a lot of suggestions. As a matter of fact, as I read the indictment, there's a lot of inferences, but not a lot of facts at the end of the day. Those inferences try to play and create a storyline. That is the most negative pejorative storyline you can create. But when those get challenged by the facts, as we will, in the legal proceedings that both motions and trials will allow us to do, then we will see a totally different story. May 27, 2021 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: Robert F. Godec, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs Sarah Charles, Assistant to the Administrator, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, United States Agency for International Development Clips Sen. Bob Menenedez (D-NJ): Then, finally, I will make a comment. It is not a question. I have spoken to the Egyptians on more than one occasion on this issue at their behest. I have a real sense that if the GERD issue is not dealt with in a way that assures them of their concerns about the Nile flowing into what would be the heart of their water supply in Egypt that they will do what is necessary. I do not like red lines, but they have suggested that they have red lines and I take them at their word that they have red lines. Not that they are desirous of doing that. They also have a very strong expression that they hope to have a resolution peacefully, but that they have their own red lines. I hope that we are engaging in that very robustly because the last thing we need, in addition to everything that is going on in Ethiopia, in addition to the possibility of a famine, to the sexual violence that is taking place, is to then have a military conflict over the GERD. So I just seriously hope we are fully engaged and understand where the parties are and how serious some of them are of purpose. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD284: Thieving Russia

5 november 2023 | 64 min

While the world is distracted, members of Congress are writing bills designed to steal Russia’s money and give it to Ukraine. In this episode, listen to the pitch being made to Congress as we examine if this is a good idea. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Taking the Russian money: is it legal? Lee C. Buchheit and Paul Stephan. October 20, 2023. Lawfare. Chelsey Dulaney and Andrew Duehren. October 11, 2023. The Wall Street Journal. Lawrence H. Summers, Philip Zelikow, and Robert B. Zoellick. June 15, 2023. Foreign Affairs. Paul Stephan. April 26, 2022. Lawfare. Laurence H. Tribe and Jeremy Lewin. April 15, 2022. The New York Times. April 15, 2021. President Joe Biden. White House Briefing Room. What we’re being told about Ukraine Secretary of State Anthony Blinken [@SecBlinken]. November 3, 2023. Twitter. Visual Journalism Team. September 29, 2023. BBC News. June 2023. Reuters. Israel-Hamas War Jaclyn Diaz and Aya Batrawy. November 7, 2023. NPR. Sharon Zhang. November 2, 2023. Bills Audio Sources October 31, 2023 Senate Appropriations Committee Witnesses: Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State Lloyd Austin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense Clips 1:05:05 Secretary of State Antony Blinken: If you look at total assistance to Ukraine going back to February of 2022, the United States has provided about $75 billion our allies and partners $90 billion. If you look at budget support, the United States has provided about $22 billion during that period, allies and partners $49 billion during that period; military support, we provided about $43 billion allies and partners $33 billion; humanitarian assistance, the United States $2.3 billion allies and partners 4.5 billion, plus another $18 to $20 billion in caring for the many refugees who went to Europe and outside of Ukraine. October 19, 2023 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (The Helsinki Commission) Witnesses: Eliav Benjamin, Deputy Head of Mission, The Embassy of Israel to the United States Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director, National Security Institute at George Mason University Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Dr. Dan Twining, President, International Republican Institute Oksana Markarova, Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States of America Clips 19:25 Eliav Benjamin: Understanding in the most unequivocal manner and in the clearest way that these are evil people. If we can even call them people. This is Israel's 9/11, only if you take the proportion of the size of Israel, this is 9/11 times 10, at least. 20:45 Eliav Benjamin: Because these terrorist organizations are not only against Israelis or against Jews, and not only in Israel, they are against mankind and anything which calls for decency, any entity and anybody who calls for protecting human rights and protecting individuals and protecting civilians. 21:25 Eliav Benjamin: Hamas have no value for human life, while Israel is doing its utmost to protect human life, including Palestinians in Gaza by even calling for them to go down south so that they won't be affected by the war. Hamas is doing everything in its power to harm civilians, to harm its own civilians. And everything that Hamas is committing -- and committed -- is no less than war crimes. And if you want crimes against humanity, and this is while Israel is working within the international human rights law, and within the military law. 28:15 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN): Ambassador we have attempted to get some monies to from Putin and from the Soviet Un -- the oligarchs, to help rebuild Ukraine. Do you have any new information about that, or concerns? Oksana Markarova: Thank you for this question. First of all, I think it's very just that all this horrible destruction, which only for the first year of the war the World Bank estimated at $411 billion -- just the physical destruction -- has to be compensated and paid for by the Russians. So with regard to the Russian oligarchs and everyone who finances this war, supports this war, thanks to Congress we already have the possibility to confiscate it through the courts and DOJ has already moved forward with one confiscation of malfeasance money -- $5.4 million, and others. It is going to take time. But I think the major question right now to discuss with all the G7 is the Russian sovereign assets. We know that there are at least in the vicinity of 300-400 billion, or maybe even more, frozen by G7 countries. Not only that, but we recently discovered there are about $200 billion that are frozen in the Euroclear system in Belgium. So I'm very glad that there are more renewed talks right now between the G7 Ministers of Finance on how to confiscate and how to better use this money even now. I think we have to join forces there because again, we're very grateful for the American support, we are very much counting on this additional supplementary budget, but at the end of the day, it's not the American, or Ukrainian, or European taxpayers who have to pay for this, it is the Russians who have to pay for their damages. We look forward to working with Congress and we're working very actively with the administration, the State Department and Treasury, on how to better do it. As the former Minister of Finance, I not only believe -- I know -- that it can be done and I know this is a very specific case, that will not jeopardize the untouchability of the Sovereign Money, which is normal in the normal circumstances. This is a very specific case of a country that has been condemned by 154 countries in the UN for the illegal aggression. We have in all three major cases, the cases against Russia on both aggression and genocide and everything else. And it's only natural and just to use the sovereign assets as well as the private assets of Putin's oligarchs to compensate and to pay this. 32:50 Eliav Benjamin: Look at the charter of Hamas, which calls for destruction, annihilation of Jews, of Israel and yes, wants to control everything from the Mediterranean Sea until the Jordan River. 33:00 Eliav Benjamin: That is their aspiration, that is what they want to do, with zero care about civilians, including their own whom they take us human shields. As we're speak now, they're firing rockets from underneath hospitals, from underneath schools, from underneath mosques, from within residential areas, putting their own people at risk and sending them to die as well. This is not what Israel is about, but this is what Hamas is about and has been about. And now once and for all, unfortunately, really unfortunately, it took such a horrific war that they launched on Israel for the whole world to realize what Hamas is really about and what we've been saying for so many years that Hamas stands for. But it's not only Hamas: it's Hamas, it's the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it's Hezbollah, it's all of these terrorist organizations who have zero care about human beings. This is who we should go after, and make sure they don't do any more harm. 39:10 Jamil Jaffer: It was the single deadliest day in Israel's history, single deadliest day for the worldwide Jewish community since the Holocaust. The equivalent of over a dozen 9/11 attacks on a population adjusted basis. Let me say it again. On the day of the 9/11 attacks, we had about 280 million Americans and we lost approximately 3000 Americans that day. Israel has lost 1400 have their own in a population of approximately 9 million -- over a dozen 9/11 attacks. 41:15 Jamil Jaffer: There's a key connection between these two fights. We know that Iran today supplies all manner of drones to Russia in its fight in Ukraine. We know that Iran has troops on the ground in Ukraine, training Russians on the use of those drones. We know that Iran is considering providing short range ballistic missiles to Russia, in that conflict. Russia, for its part, has provided Iran with its primary source of Conventional Munitions and nuclear technology for the vast majority of the time. Now, the key connection between these organizations is important to note. It's not just Russia and Iran; it's China and North Korea as well. These are all globally repressive nation states. They repress their own people, they hold them back, they give them no opportunity, and then they seek to export that repression to other parts of the globe, first in their immediate neighborhood, and then more broadly across the world. These nations are increasingly working together. We see China and Russia's no-limits partnership. We see President Xi saying to President Putin, in an off hand conversation that the world heard, that there are changes that haven't been seen in 100 years, and Russia and China are leading those changes. We know that for decades, Iran and North Korea have cooperated on ballistic missile and nuclear technology. We know that today in the fight in Gaza, Hamas is using North Korean rocket propelled grenades. So the reality is these globally repressive nation states have long been working together. And it is incumbent upon the United States to stand with our friends in Ukraine and our allies in Israel in this fight against global repression. 41:35 Dr. Dan Twining: It's vital not to mistake Hamas's control of Gaza with legitimacy. There have been no elections in Gaza since 2006. Hamas will not hold them because it thinks it will lose. Polling from September, a month ago, shows that only a quarter of Palestinians support Hamas leading the Palestinian people. Before the conflict, 77% of Palestinians told pollsters they wanted elections as soon as possible. A super majority tells pollsters that Hamas is corrupt. It is a terrorist organization, not a governing authority that seeks better lives for Palestinians. Residents of Gaza suffer poverty, isolation, and violence at its hands. 43:25 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Israel has just suffered in Iran-sponsored massacre, Ukraine is struggling to repel Russian forces, and Taiwan watches with grave concern as China threatens to invade. America must view these three embattled democracies as important assets. And it must view these three adversaries as a threat to the US-led world order. As we speak, there is a very real possibility of a regional war erupting in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran has armed and funded Hamas and Hezbollah along with other factions in the region. Recent reports point to the existence of an Iranian-led nerve center in Beirut that is designed to help these terrorist groups target Israel more efficiently. Fortunately, the IDF has thwarted Iranian efforts to create a new terror proxy in the Golan Heights. Israel has repeatedly destroyed most, if not all, of what Iran is trying to stand up there. However, Iran-backed militias do remain in Syria, and Russia's presence in Syria is complicated all of this. Moscow's missile defense systems have forced Israel to take significant precautions in the ongoing effort to prevent the smuggling of advanced Iranian weapons from Syria to Lebanon. These are precision guided munitions. We've never seen a non-state actor or a terrorist group acquire these before and Russia is making this more difficult. The operations to destroy these weapons in Syria are ongoing. They often take place with Russian knowledge. It's an uneasy arrangement and because of that, the Syrian front is still manageable, but Russia's role in the region is far from positive. Moscow continues to work closely with both Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, Russian-Iranian relations have deepened considerably since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This goes beyond the sanctions busting that was the basis of their relationship before all this started. Russia has received UAVs from Iran, which we've heard today, Tehran has sent advisors to train Russian personnel, and since last summer, Russia has launched over 2000 Iranian UAVs into Ukraine. Moscow now wants to produce some of these UAVs domestically and so Russia and Iran are currently working together to increase the drones' range and speed. Iran has supplied other material to Russia like artillery shells and rockets. In return, Tehran wants Russia to provide fighter jets, attack helicopters, radar and combat trainer aircraft, and more. Moscow has sent to Tehran some captured Western weapons from Ukraine. These include javelin, NLAW anti-tank guided missiles, and Stinger MANPADS. Amidst all of this, on top of it all, concerns are mounting about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Beijing has openly intimidated the island nation. Within a 24 hour time span in July, 16 PLA warships approached Taiwan, accompanied with over 100 different aircraft sorties. China's calculus about an invasion of Taiwan could be influenced heavily right now by what the United States does in Ukraine and in Israel. Ihe landscape is clear: China, Iran and Russia are working together. Our policy must be to deny them the ability to threaten our friends and our interests. 47:45 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: It's great news. I was gonna recommend it, but it's already happened: the United States has sent two of its Iron Dome batteries based in Guam to Israel, en route already. 52:15 Dr. Dan Twining: If America's three greatest adversaries are going to actively collaborate in armed attacks on our allies, that's all the more reason for us to ensure that friendly democracies prevail in the fight. Giving Ukraine and Israel what they need to restore their sovereignty and security is essential. Appeasing aggression in one theater only invites belligerence in another. Make no mistake, China is watching our reaction to the wars on Ukraine and Israel with great interest. If we don't show the will and staying power to help our friends win, we only embolden Chinese designs in Asia. Defeating aggression in Europe and the Middle East is central to deterring aggression in Asia. 1:09:55 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: I am going to use the current crisis right now to sort of explain how America can get a win. That attack by Hamas was sponsored by Iran. Hamas is an Iran-back terrorist organization that also enjoys the support of China and Russia. As Israel has now readied to go into the Gaza Strip and to destroy this terrorist organization with the support of the United States, we're now seeing Iran-backed proxies threaten a much wider war. We're watching Hezbollah and Lebanon, Shiite militias in Syria, potentially other groups in other parts of the region. What needs to happen here right now is America needs to determine the outcome of this conflict. And by that, I mean it needs to deter Iran, it needs to deter Hezbollah and any other actor that might intervene, and force them to watch helplessly as our ally destroys Hamas. Watch them look on helplessly as one of their important pieces is removed from the chessboard. If we can do that, then I think we're now in the process of reestablishing deterrence after having lost it for many years. 1:14:15 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Along with Ranking Member [Jim] Risch, I'm the lead on the what we call the REPO Act, which would authorize the President to work with other countries in Europe that are also home to frozen Russian sovereign assets, and create a procedure for seizing those assets and directing them to Ukraine to be used for rebuilding and other purposes. I think there are mixed feelings in the administration about this, but they seem to be moving our way. I'd love to have your thoughts on the value of grabbing those sovereign assets, not just as additional resources for Ukraine, but also as a powerful signal to Putin that his behavior is going to have real punishment and hitting him good and hard right in the wallet, I think, would be a good added signal. 1:15:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): The second is simply to make sure that we do a better job of grabbing Russian oligarch assets. We have a predicament right now, which is that if you're a US citizen, and you're driving down the highway and you've got $400,000 in unexplained cash in your car, the police can pull you over and they can seize that. If you are a foreign, Russian, crooked oligarch, and you have a $400 million yacht someplace, you have more rights than that American citizen, in terms of defending your yacht. It's a very simple procedure, it's called "in rem." You move on the yacht rather than having to chase through all the ownership structures. And I would very much like to see us pass a bill that allows us to proceed against foreign oligarchs', criminals', and kleptocrats' assets in rem. 1:16:50 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: The seizing of assets and redirecting them to Ukraine, I think, sounds like a solid thing for the United States to do. I think, though, it would make sense to do this with a coalition of countries. So that the US is not singled out -- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): That's what the legislation requires. In fact, the bulk of the funds are actually held in European countries, so acting on our own would not be sensible. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: It wouldn't be effective, correct. So getting the Europeans on board, and by the way, getting the Europeans to chip in a bit more, just as we are, I think is also a very sound policy. As far as targeting the oligarch assets, I fully understand your frustration. When I worked at the Treasury Department trying to track those kinds of assets was never easy. We did work with a sort of shorthand version of, if we're 80% sure that we know what we're dealing with we're going to move first and then adjudicate after it's been done. And by and large, that worked out very well during the height of the war on terror. And there was an urgency that I think needs to be felt now, as we think about targeting Russian assets too. 1:18:00 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): To follow me on my path of in rem Latinate legal terms. There's also qui tam out there, which allows individuals to bring fraud actions in the name of the United States, and if it turns out there really is fraud, they get a share of it. It would be nice to have people who work for, let's say, a Russian oligarch to be able to be paid a bit of a bounty if they come in and testify and say, "Yep, definitely his boat every time we go out, he's on it. Every time the guests come they're his guests and we call him boss." Things like that can make a big difference, so we're trying to push that as well. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: That sounds like something for the Rewards for Justice program at the State Department. They might be able to expand it. We already have bounties for those that provide evidence leading to arrests of terrorists, why not oligarchs? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Correct. 1:24:40 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Qatar has, for the last 10 or 12 years, had a an external headquarters. Some of [Hamas's] political leadership has been based there: Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal both call Qatar home. Of course, this is not new for the Qataris. They've also hosted all manner of other terrorist organizations in that country. It's the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS. It's well known at this point that Qatar is a hospitable place. They just don't agree with our definition of terrorism. Fundraising takes place there, all sorts of organizational activities take place there, and people are free to come and go. It is a safe haven for them. It is extremely dangerous that we have bestowed upon that country the label of major non-NATO ally, and that this is allowed to continue. They're offering right now their "good offices" -- I'll put those in air quotes -- to try to negotiate the release of the 302 hostages. This is not in Qatar's is interest. They are advocating on behalf of Hamas, as they have been for a long time. This should not be allowed to stand. 1:28:10 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Hezbollah is based in Lebanon primarily, although they've got a significant base of operations in Latin America right now, and of course they've got a lot of operatives running around in Tehran. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the regime in Iran. Just to give you a sense of the threat, right now Hezbollah is threatening to open up a second front with Israel. While the fighting rages in Gaza, in the north of Israel there is a second front that could very well be open. There have been dozens of rockets that have been fired, dozens of anti-tank missiles infiltrations into northern Israel. This is very disconcerting. This is one of the things that I think the President is trying to deter at this moment, to deter a second front from opening. Hezbollah is considered to have an army that is equal in strength to the average European army. It has 150,000 rockets right now facing south at Israel. It's got precision guided munitions that could hit strategic targets, like Israel's nuclear facility, or like its chemical plant. These are things that could create catastrophic attacks, and we could be hours or days or weeks away from watching those threats materialize. And so this is why it is imperative right now that the US mount the deterrence that is necessary to stare down Iran and to stare down Hezbollah and to allow Israel to be able to do what it needs to in Gaza and hopefully end this crisis. 1:31:15 Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX): What does it look like if a Palestinian family of four is being interviewed for safe passage into a neighboring country or nearby country? What exactly does that look like? What does that processing and that vetting look like? Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: I'm going to make a suggestion here. I don't know how that kind of vetting can happen. You know, you're looking at a territory roughly the size of Washington DC, with 2.2 million people that had been subjected to Hamas rule for 16 years. How you start to figure out who's okay and who's not at this stage in the game, who's a threat and who isn't, is going to be really challenging. I wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal with a colleague of mine, Mark Dubowitz, our CEO, on Monday. I want to make this suggestion: I've already identified a number of the countries that have been Hamas supporters over the years, those that have financed and provided the weapons and the training to Hamas. I think there should be significant pressure on those countries to take in the refugees. Have a clear message from the United States that they created this problem, and it is now their problem to take care of these 2 million people. Quite frankly, I don't care who's radicalized when they go to these countries that have been supporting a radical cause for as long as they have. I think this would be justice. October 18, 2023 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Witnesses: Philip Zelikow, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia Rebeccah Heinrichs, Senior Fellow and Director of the Keystone Defense Initiative at the Hudson Institute Clips 14:35 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): The Russian sovereign assets is a winner in my judgment. If we can tap into the right -- the very people who started this war and this conflict, in my judgment, should be paying for the cost, and not as much the US taxpayer. And that's why I introduced the REPO Act, the bipartisan, bicameral legislation that demands that the Biden administration transfer frozen Russian sovereign assets to the Ukraine effort. It's beyond time that Russia pay for the war that it created. My bill prohibits the Biden administration from unfreezing Russian sovereign assets until Russia ends its unprovoked war of aggression and agrees to compensate Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 16:05 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): To be clear, the war crimes and genocide committed by Russia cannot be reversed by money alone. 22:30 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): My approach was crafted to be consistent with US Policy and International Law by amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA, and using its established framework and existing definitions. As a former Treasury official, in my view, this is a better legislative approach. This is consistent with well established international precedent, whereby the United States work with international partners to establish a fund like we saw in Afghanistan in 2022. The Iran-US Claims Tribunal in 1981, the UN compensation fund for Kuwait in 1991, following the invasion by Iraq. 22:40 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): I too have introduced a bill on this topic, HR 5370. And I appreciate the Foreign Affairs staff working with me on that. My bill would give the President authority to seize and transfer title of Russian sovereign assets within the United States jurisdiction into an international fund for the sole purpose of Ukraine's eventual reconstruction and humanitarian relief. I'm grateful to Chairman McCaul and I co-sponsor his bill on this topic, as well for his leadership. 24:10 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Considering most Russian sovereign assets are actually located outside the United States, it's important for our partners and allies around the world to introduce and pass similar companion legislation rather than having the US act unilaterally. 24:30 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Let me be clear, I consider Russian Federation sovereign assets inclusive of all state owned enterprise assets and those of Russian publicly traded companies, like Gazprom, that are controlled by more than 50% by the Russian Federation. 26:30 Philip Zelikow: Economic warfare is the real center of gravity in this war. Economic warfare is the center of gravity in the war. I know we all watch the daily updates from the battle front lines. You know, this movement here, that movement there. This is a war of attrition. It's going to be decided by economic and industrial staying power as the war continues almost certainly into 2025 and perhaps beyond. 27:00 Philip Zelikow: In that struggle, the economic warfare against Russia has achieved some gains, and will have some more gains over the long haul. Russia's economic warfare against Ukraine has been devastating and is not sufficiently appreciated. Ukraine lost 30% of its GDP in the first year of the war. 1/3 of the population of Ukraine is displaced, half externally half internally. Russia is waging economic warfare on three main fronts. It's destroying Ukraine's infrastructure, and will do another energy infrastructure war this winter, for which it's gearing up, including with North Korean weapons and Iranian weapons. Point two: they've destroyed Ukraine's ability to export through the Black Sea except for a trickle, which was the fundamental business model of a commodity exporting country. Point three: they have destroyed Ukraine's civil aviation. Ukraine has no civil aviation. Any of you who've traveled, as I have, to Ukraine will notice that you can't fly in the country, which makes travel and business in the country now back to the era of the railroads before there were airplanes. So the the Russian economic warfare against Ukraine is devastating. And as time passes, this is going to have deep effects on the ability of Ukraine's economy and society to hold together, which will play out politically. So point one: economic warfare is the true center of gravity in the war. 28:35 Philip Zelikow: Two, the Russian assets are the key strategy to change the outcome. The Russian assets are at least $280 billion. Now, even in our debased day and age, that's a lot of money. It's a lot of money in the context of the Ukrainian economy. Even using very conservative multipliers of how much private investment the public investment can unlock, let's say one to one, the impact of this money on the whole future prospects of Ukraine and its staying power are decisive. Otherwise, they're relying on US and European taxpayers whose readiness you can gauge. So this is potentially the decisive fulcrum of the economic warfare and Ukraine's prospects in the war. 29:25 Philip Zelikow: So, third point, why has this been so hard? First reason was there was a knee jerk neuralgia on the part of bankers and financiers to the actual confiscation of Russian assets in the foreign exchange holdings, with much talk of losing confidence in the dollar in the euro. On analysis, these worries quickly fall away, which is one reason that I worked with my colleagues, Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary, and Bob Zoellick, the former president of the World Bank, who do know something about international finance to debunk those concerns. And I'd be glad to go into more detail about why the concerns about the dollar or the euro turn out to be overblown when they're analyzed. 30:10 Philip Zelikow: The other concern was how do we do this legally? There's been a ton of legal confusion about this. This bill will help dispel that legal confusion. 30:30 Philip Zelikow: What about sovereign immunity? Sovereign immunity is a doctrine that only exists in the context of national courts trying to usurp sovereign authority in a situation where it's sovereign on sovereign, whereas in this bill, there would be an act of state that goes after Russian sovereign property. There is no such thing as immunity; there is no doctrine of sovereign immunity. Ordinarily, under international law, if one sovereign takes another sovereign's property, then the loser is entitled to compensation for that nationalization or expropriation. So why isn't Russia entitled for that compensation in this case? Because it's a lawful state countermeasure. Countermeasures are different from sanctions. And countermeasures -- and this is a well recognized body of law -- you are allowed to do things that would ordinarily violate your sovereign obligations to a fellow sovereign, because that sovereign has committed such extreme outlaw behavior, that the countermeasure is a lawful recourse. And that is exactly the extreme case we have here. There is a well codified body of law on this, and Russia has hit every one of the marks for a set of lawful state countermeasures that deprives them of any right to compensation when states take their money and then use it, putting it in escrow to compensate the victims of Russia's aggression. 37:35 Rebeccah Heinrichs: The United States directly benefits from Ukraine's battlefield successes as Russia remains a top tier adversary of the United States. These are the weapons that Americans made and designed specifically to go after the kinds of things that the Ukrainians are destroying in the Russian military. 39:55 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): The EU has a plan just to tax frozen assets and send those proceeds to Ukraine. Our Treasury Secretary, Miss Yellen recently claimed that transferring sovereign assets to Ukraine was not legal. Do you agree with that, and if not, what is your opinion from a legal standpoint? Philip Zelikow: I think Secretary Yellen has now revised her view of this matter, having had a chance to be informed by some of the legal work that's been done since she first made that impromptu remark. There is the legal authority both under domestic law and international law, and the bill this committee is considering would reaffirm, consolidate, and elaborate that authority. So legally, this can be done. 40:55 Philip Zelikow: What the EU came up with in May was the idea -- they were encountering a lot of resistance to actually taking the Russian money, so they said, Well, can we come up with something, since a lot of these as the securities have now matured and are in cash and Euroclear, mainly -- the clearing house in Brussels -- is now managing the cash on behalf of Russia, because Russia is no longer able to manage it. So can we do something with the interest? And by the way, the EU couldn't get that through in June. Ursula von der Leyen couldn't get that adopted over, principally, French and German opposition at the time. So they're talking about just taking this interest. As a legal matter, if you have the legal right to take the interest, you have the legal right to take the principle. This was a cosmetic idea trying to overcome the opposition they had there. It's kind of a situation where, as one of my colleagues in this effort, Larry Tribe, has put it as well, instead of crossing the Rubicon, they're kind of wading in. From a legal point of view, it's actually clearer to do the transfer for Ukraine than to try to expropriate the money using tax authorities, which makes it look like you're expropriating it for your country, rather than for the benefit of the victims, which is a much cleaner, legal way to do it. So they ended up, for political reasons, with a half measure that takes only a tiny fraction of what they should and does so in ways that are actually legally awkward. I understand why they are where they are, but as they process this, I think they're just going to have to step up to going ahead and crossing the Rubicon. 50:20 Philip Zelikow: The whole argument that I made in an article with Summers and Zoellick in Foreign Affairs is that actually, this is a strategy for victory. You put this enormous war chest and the multiplier of private investment into play. And what you can envision is a whole new European recovery program, anchored on the rebuilding of Ukraine that not only saves Ukraine, revitalizes it, but links it to the EU accession process, to the enlargement of the European Union. In other words, to the victory of the whole cause of freedom, in a way almost regardless of where the final battle line ends up being in Ukraine, Ukraine will be growing with bright prospects, part of a Europe with brighter prospects, because of its alignment with the free world. 51:25 Philip Zelikow: When people worry about the significance of this in foreign exchange, I ask them to just remember two numbers 93 and three. If you look at the percentage of foreign exchange holdings held in the world today, 60% United States, 23% Euro, 6% yen, 4% Sterling: that's 93. The percentage of foreign exchange holdings in Chinese renminbi: three. And the Chinese were really encouraged that it's gone up from 2.5 to 3 in recent years. So when you look at 93 to three, that's what you get when we work with our allies in a concerted economic strategy. We can move on the Russian assets, and there's really no choice except to stick with the currencies of the free world because they're still the only basis for being a participant in the world economy. 54:20 Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI): Who actually has the authority to take possession of it? Because as you point out, if you've got the legal right to the interest, you got the legal right to the principal. Who is granted that authority? And then who is granted the authority to distribute that? Philip Zelikow: So the theory is that the national governments can transfer any of the Russian state assets in their jurisdiction into escrow accounts for the benefit of the victims, as a state countermeasure to Russia's aggression. So the way that would work is under the President's IEEPA authority, he could transfer all this -- and there are precedents for this -- into an escrow account held in the States and then an international escrow account, with this limited purpose of compensating the victims of Russian aggression, then you need to create an international mechanism, which the US would participate in creating, to then manage that distribution, which needs to have a proactive urgent speed of relevance. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI): That was what I was afraid of. If it just simply takes one participant to bog the whole thing down, guess what? It's not going to work, in my humble opinion. Philip Zelikow: When they're debating this in the EU, some people say we should have a new EU directive to govern this, but under our Common Foreign and Security Policy, one member like Hungary, for example, could botch that. So if you create something perhaps managed by the G7 Donor Coordination Platform, that is a relatively simple instrument in which the United States could play a part. One thing that you've done in the bill you've drafted, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Kaptur, is you're creating mechanisms in which Congress has insight and some oversight into how the United States participates in that process, and what the mechanism does and how the money is spent, which I think is an appropriate role for the Congress. There are precedents for how to do this. The design of this international mechanism I'm discussing is both policy driven, but also has a reactive claim side, but can have some conditionality on reform and the EU accession process. That's a heavy lift. Building that mechanism will be the biggest job since we built the Economic Cooperation Administration to run Marshall Plan aid 70 years ago. That serious work has not really begun, because we're just working on the preliminary phase of mobilizing and using this money. 58:25 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA): You believe the Administration, even without this bill, has authority right now to transfer the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Philip Zelikow: Yes, it does. It has it under the existing IEEPA authorities that the President has already invoked. The Renew Democracy Initiative has put out a really extensive legal brief that goes into great detail about this. I think actually the administration's lawyers are coming around to the view that yes, they do have the authority under existing law. What the REPO Act does is, one, it reaffirms that, but two, it makes Congress a partner in this with regulation and oversight that's an appropriate Congressional role. So by both reaffirming the authority and getting Congress to join the executive and doing this together I think it makes it a truly national effort with an appropriate Congressional part. 59:20 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA): How would you respond to critics who say this would make it harder for other folks in the future to want to invest in the United States? Philip Zelikow: You can look at the numbers. After we froze Russian assets, everybody understood the political risks that might be involved with putting their money into dollar holdings. The Chinese called in all their bankers and asked them, "Do we have any other options?" That happened last year. You can just simply track what's happened in the international financial markets and see how folks have now priced in that political risk. But the result is still very strong demand and interest in the dollar. But here again, to come back to Congressman [Gregory] Meeks point, by working with the Euro and the yen and Sterling, we give them no place to go. If they want to participate in the world economy, then they're just going to have to invest in assets like that. 1:00:30 Rebeccah Heinrichs: The other thing that's very interesting and good in the REPO bill that is different is this provision, Section 103, that would prohibit the release of blocked Russian sovereign assets. I think that's an incredibly important element of this bill. That would remove the temptation for any kind of sweetener for the Russians to have access to these funds and leave Ukraine in a lurch whenever they have to rebuild their society. That's a very important part of the bill. 1:01:10 Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX): Why would it be better to transfer these assets for Ukraine's direct benefit than to use them for leverage in negotiations and ending this conflict at some point? Rebeccah Heinrichs: It comes back down to the fundamental question at the end: who's going to foot the bill for rebuilding Ukrainian society? Somebody's going to have to do it. It should not be the American people primarily. They're footing a pretty significant bill. I think that benefits American industry and benefits our own military, but this particular piece should be carried out by the perpetrators of this act. So I think that it'd be a mistake to hold that out as a sweetener to get the Russians to come to the end or the conclusion. 1:01:55 Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX): Mr. Zelikow, you mentioned earlier in response to one of my colleague's questions that it looks like that under current law under the IEEPA authorities, the president can do this activity now. Do you know why the President is not doing that? And if he chose to do that, could he do it immediately? Or is there any delay in that? Philip Zelikow: They could act immediately. They've delayed a long time, partly, to be very blunt -- because I've been talking to a lot of people about this -- they had very deep interagency disagreements inside the administration over how to proceed and they found that their bandwidth was totally overwhelmed by other Ukrainian-related concerns, and they didn't give this heavy attention until fairly recently. And now that they have given it sustained attention, I think the President has actually settled, at a fundamental level, those interagency disputes and they are now moving forward to try to find a way to make this work. 1:02:50 Philip Zelikow: I think the point you raised a minute ago about whether we want to hold this back as leverage was one factor in the back of the minds of some people. I think as the war has continued on through this year, hopes of a quick settlement of the war have dissipated. I think they realize that this is going to be a long war. That sobering realization has kind of sunk in. Also, from a legal point of view, if you want to, you could credit the Russians in any peace negotiation. You can basically say this is a credit against your liability for the for rebuilding Ukraine. 1:04:55 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA): As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have been to many European nations. To a nation, they say the United States is the indispensable partner here, and they say that with all humility and not blowing smoke. We visited the Hague and sat with lead prosecutor Khan, and everyone is talking about waiting us out. Not just waiting out Congress's support, but waiting out the outcome of the next election. They asked us specifically about that. Mr. Putin is clearly waiting for the outcome of the next election in hopes that it will not be the reelection of Joe Biden, who I'm really proud is in Israel right now. Timing. How does this work? You already said it's going to be into 2025. How do we use this leverage, this economic warfare as the center of gravity in this conflict, to bring the timing tighter to a successful conclusion for Ukraine? Philip Zelikow: So that's a great question. And this is why action on this issue is so urgent now, because the operational timeline to stand this up on a massive multi 100 billion dollar scale is if we move on this in the next couple of months and mobilize the money. We could get an enormous operation up and running with a relatively secure source of funding by next year. If we get that up and running by the middle of next year, we then insulate ourselves, to some extent, against the kind of electoral risk to which you gently alluded. 1:07:55 Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ): If the United States did transfer Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine, how could Ukraine best use these in the near term? Philip Zelikow: In the near term, what they would do, I think, is begin undertaking a comprehensive program to shore up their infrastructure, withstand the coming Russian campaigns to further damage that and begin to rebuild the basic transportation infrastructure and other things that can then begin to unlock a really bright future for the rest of the Ukrainian economy. There are things that can be done then to move Ukrainian industry into new sectors. I think the Ukrainian goal is not just to restore what they had five years ago, but actually to use this as a way to build back better, to imagine a brighter future in partnership with Europe. And then if the money is managed well, this gives leverage to encourage the Ukrainian reform process as part of the EU accession. Putin's whole effort here is, "if I can't conquer Ukraine, I will wreck it and make it ungovernable," and we'll show decisively that that objective cannot be achieved. 1:10:35 Rebeccah Heinrichs: If I may, sir, another principle that has been misunderstood throughout this conflict is this notion of escalation. Escalation is not bad. It's only bad if it's the adversary who's escalating to prevail. We want Ukraine to escalate to win, to convince the Russians to end the war. If you do not permit the Ukrainians to escalate, then you only have a long protracted war of attrition that none of us can afford. 1:12:05 Philip Zelikow: Whenever you do a large thing in international affairs, there are going to be unintended consequences from that, and rather than be dismissive about that concern, I'll say if you embark on this, then people will be tempted to try to use these sorts of precedents against us. They'll be limited in their ability to do that because of the fundamental places where money is held in the world economy. A lot of people don't do business with the United States because they love us; they do business with us because they think it's necessary. If they could expropriate our property with no penalty, they would. Venezuela tried that. Most of the world doesn't want to follow Venezuela's example. So yes, there are some potential unintended consequences of people trying to use this precedent. But one reason we've tried to set this under international law is to use the standards of international law to govern this countermeasure. International law allows these countermeasures, but it says you can only do this if the target country's outlaw behavior is extreme, and there's a standard for that. It turns out Russia totally meets that standard. This is the most extreme case of international aggression since the Second World War, bigger than Korea, bigger than Kuwait. But by setting that kind of standard, it makes that slippery slope a little less slippery. 1:14:25 Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ): There are some concerns that if we were to transfer these assets, use it for the benefit Ukraine, would there be an impact on the US dollar? Just get your thoughts on that? Philip Zelikow: Yeah, that's why we got in some of the best people we could on international plans, just to do the analysis on that. 93% of the foreign exchange holdings are held in G7 countries and only 3% in renminbi. Running to the renminbi because they're worried about the dollar is something people would do if they wanted to do it already. They've already priced in the political risk of dollar holdings after they've seen what we've done. And you can see their asset allocations. Now, the dollar is involved in 88% of all foreign commercial transactions on one side of the transaction or another. So it's hard to run away from it, especially if the Euro, Yen, and Sterling are in there with you. There's really kind of no place to go if you want to participate in the international economy. Working with Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, Robert Zoellick, with Brad Setser, who studies international finance, we ran some numbers about worst case scenarios and so on, and we think that concern, which sounds good as a soundbite, it turns out on analysis, it fades away. 1:16:10 Philip Zelikow: The US only holds a fraction of the relevant Russian money because the Russians tried to get their money out of our jurisdiction. But when you go to Europe and ask them what's holding them up, they all say "We're waiting for the American lead." So even though we may only hold a fraction of the money, we hold a lot more than a fraction of the relevant clout, and we need to go together, exactly as you imply. September 28, 2023 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Witnesses: Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, United States Department of State Christopher P. Maier, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, United States Department of Defense Caroline Krass, General Counsel, United States Department of Defense Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, United States Department of State Clips 33:00 Victoria Nuland: First with regard to the Taliban, we've been very clear we're going to judge the Taliban by their actions. It is our assessment that the Taliban have partially adhered to their counterterrorism commitments. We've seen them disrupt ISIS-K, for example. But there's obviously plenty more to to do to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven, or return to safe haven, or persist as a safe haven. That said, I would note that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center Christy Abizaid recently said publicly that al Qaeda is at its historic nadir in Afghanistan, and its revival is unlikely. 34:20 Victoria Nuland: Iran is obviously a state sponsor of terrorism; it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD283: A Federal Reserve Digital Dollar (CBDC)

23 oktober 2023 | 74 min

The House Financial Services Committee has been investigating the possibility of the Federal Reserve creating a Central Bank Digital Currency. In this episode, hear experts unpack the nuances and implications of this idea during three hearings, and discover how you can play a part in shaping the future of American currency. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Operation Choke Point Frank Keating. November 7, 2018. The Hill. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Staff. May 29, 2014. U.S. House of Representatives. Digital Asset Glass-Steagall James Rickards. August 27, 2012. U.S. News & World Report. Audio Sources September 14, 2023 Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Witnesses: Yuval Rooz, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Digital Asset Paige Paridon, Senior Vice President and Senior Associate General Counsel, Bank Policy Institute Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Dr. Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute Raúl Carrillo, Academic Fellow, Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law School Clips 27:35 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Look, the Constitution is clear. Only Congress has the authority to coin money and regulate the value of such money. And we've heard the same from Fed officials, right before this committee, and most recently from Vice Chair for Supervision, Michael Barr, who last week told an audience in Philadelphia and I quote, "The Federal Reserve would only proceed with the issuance of a CBDC with clear support from the executive branch and authorizing legislation from Congress." The Biden Department of Justice agrees, saying, quote, "there would be substantial legal risks to issuing a CBDC without such legislation." 32:05 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): CBDC is just one type of publicly issued digital dollar and would be issued, backed, and regulated by the Federal Reserve and have the full faith and backing of the US government. This could serve as an alternative to existing forms of payments and have a benefit, including instant payment settlement, provide a medium for cross border transactions, and foster greater financial inclusion. More than 130 countries have begun to explore their own government backed digital currencies. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India have already commenced pilot programs, and a digital Euro pilot could be launched as early as 2028. Meanwhile, the US remains far behind amid increasing and blatant information about features of digital currency. While concerns about data privacy and government surveillance are real, especially in countries that do not respect human rights and privacy, a CBDC does not have to be designed that way. We could employ an architecture that would protect personal data while including anti-money laundering and terrorist financing features. 33:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): It is counterintuitive that my colleagues should be raising concerns about data privacy while thousands of private companies, domestic and foreign, are surveilling, aggregating, and selling consumer data each and every day. 33:45 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): I'm announcing and inviting my colleagues to join the Congressional Digital Dollar Caucus. This forum will educate members on critical issues relating to the development, design, and potential implementation of a government issued digital dollar. I plan to invite innovators, technologists, academics, and other experts to share their findings and development. I hope my colleagues will join me in this exploration. 34:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): The use of anonymous cash has plummeted and more of our transactions are occurring online and under surveillance, tracked and aggregated by financial services companies. Indeed China has turned that fact into a tool of full spectrum surveillance of its citizens. This is why I've introduced the Ecash Act. This bill directs the Treasury to design and pilot a digital version of cash and would complement the Fed-issued CBDC. It would allow individuals to make instant peer to peer payments with no consumer data or transaction tracking and without the use of a bank account. 36:10 Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN): The need to protect Americans' right to financial product privacy is at an all time high. That's why I introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act with over 50 of my colleagues. This bill prevents unelected bureaucrats from creating a tool for financial surveillance if not open, permissionless, and private, like cash, a CBDC is nothing more than a CCP-style surveillance tool that will oppress the American way of life and we're not going to allow that to happen. 38:20 Dr. Norbert Michel: In my testimony, I argue that the United States should not launch a Central Bank Digital Currency, a CBDC. Advocates for a CBDC tout many potential benefits, but there's nothing unique about the technology that would provide those supposed benefits. 39:00 Dr. Norbert Michel: A CBDC in any form would be a direct liability of the central government, a digital tether to its citizens such that it would radically alter the existing public-private relationship that already exists in our monetary arrangement. 39:25 Dr. Norbert Michel: First, issuing a CBDC would not help preserve the status of the United States dollar, it would likely damage it. Proponents argue that because China has launched a CBDC, the United States must keep up by launching its own. Others make the narrower claim that the US must launch a CBDC to keep up with broader technological changes in the payment sector. But anyone who chooses to do so can transact digitally in U.S. dollars right now. The CBDC does not take us from a world with zero or a few digital transactions to one filled with digital transactions. Moreover, the dollar's renowned status is owed to the strength of the American economy and its legal protections for private citizens relative to many other countries. Unlike in many other places, Americans do not have to live in constant fear that the government will take their money. However, if the US creates a CBDC, anyone who wants to use the dollar would lose a layer of protection from that type of government abuse. 40:30 Dr. Norbert Michel: The second myth is that a CBDC would expand financial inclusion by providing a new source of financial services for America's unbanked and underbanked populations. Again, though, this is not a technological problem. In other words, the CBDC itself does not accomplish this goal. The private sector already enables us to transact digitally, and it has been steadily shrinking the number of Americans without financial services for years. We also know, because the FDIC asked them, that unbanked and underbanked Americans primarily are in that situation because either they don't have enough money to have an account, or they don't want to give their personal information to a bank or the government. And what should be obvious is that a lack of sufficient income is a much broader economic problem than a CBDC or financial service technology. While some proponents argue that a CBDC lowers the cost of providing financial services, that's true only if the government subsidizes those costs or chooses to waive the same level of regulatory scrutiny it requires of private firms. And that level of scrutiny, it turns out is more than just a costly mandate that the government has placed on private firms. It's also the one that causes those unbanked Americans to say they don't trust banks. It's also the same one that requires people to hand over their personal information to private companies, and as a result potentially to the government. If the government removes that mandate for all financial service providers, there would be no cost advantage to a CBDC. 42:05 Dr. Norbert Michel: That brings me to my last myth, the idea that a CBDC could somehow enhance financial privacy. Currently, Americans are forced to hand over personal information to financial institutions. Those institutions are required to track transactions, and the government can access that information without a warrant. The fourth amendment is supposed to protect Americans from the government gaining access to this kind of information, unless they show probable cause and obtain a warrant. But it no longer protects Americans when it comes to financial information. And the only buffer left is that the government must go through the financial institution to obtain that information. Introducing a CBDC would remove this last layer of protection. It would place all financial transactions either in a government database or leave them a keystroke away. 44:15 Paige Paridon: We believe that at this point there is little evidence that a CBDC would bring measurable benefits to the US economy or consumers. Furthermore, a CBDC could upend the commercial banking system and create financial instability. 44:30 Paige Paridon: CBDC can take one of two general forms: a wholesale CBDC, which would be used only by financial intermediaries, and a retail CBDC, which could be used by consumers and businesses. To date, most research and attention has been focused on a retail, intermediated, account-based model in which consumer's CBDCs would be held in an account at a bank or another financial intermediary, like an asset held in custody. The CBDC could not be used by the bank to make loans in the way that dollar deposits are used today. Any transfer of $1 deposit from a bank to a CBDC is $1 unavailable for lending to businesses or consumers. By attracting deposits away from banks, a CBDC likely would undermine the commercial banking system in the United States and severely constrict the availability and increase the cost of credit to the economy. 46:30 Paige Paridon: With respect to financial inclusion, a review of the reasons why certain individuals are unbanked makes it clear that a CBDC would be unlikely to meaningfully increase financial inclusion. For example, FDIC data reveals that many respondents are unbanked because of privacy concerns, and intermediated CBDC is unlikely to mitigate those concerns, given that it would presumably come with the same know-your-customer requirements that currently apply to banks. 54:35 Christina Parajon Skinner: So privacy rights are the clearest place to start. Today, individuals can enjoy comprehensive privacy in their payments transactions by using cash. Now, although most central banks have suggested that CBDC is not going to replace cash, that near-term promise can't be guaranteed over the longer term, and the insinuation that CBDC is necessary or inevitable seems motivated by a view that cash will eventually become obsolete. But because central banks don't have the technology presently to offer cash-like privacy, a digital currency -- unless it's radically redesigned -- will bring with it the ability for the state to monitor or surveil its citizens' payments activity. 55:20 Christina Parajon Skinner: I'd like to focus on the impact of a CBDC on the Federal Reserve. Certainly since 2010, the power and authority of the Fed has grown considerably, and Congress's responsibility to oversee the Fed requires it to understand how a CBDC could further empower the central bank but also how it might weaken it. On the one hand, CBDC could result in a larger central bank balance sheet. Issuing CBDC would increase the liability side of the Fed's balance sheet if the total of bank reserves, repos, and cash balances largely remained unchanged. So if the liabilities with CBDC increase, so too much the Fed's assets. The Fed could buy more Treasury securities to match CBDC, but that could possibly invite pressure on the Fed to issue more CBDCs to in turn absorb more government debt. And overall, that dynamic could further erode the limited fiscal discipline that we have remaining. A CBDC could also affect the Fed's independence in the way that it would establish a direct relationship between the central bank and the real economy for the first time in history. One result of that relationship would almost certainly be the further erosion of the line between monetary and fiscal policy. When central banks begin to issue liabilities directly to the people, it will become much more difficult for the central bank to justify their provision of liquidity to banks and the financial system, as opposed to households, especially during a crisis. And effectively this could open the door to political pressure on the Fed to provide liquidity assistance to households during turbulent economic times. But these sorts of household level interventions would radically transform the central bank and its purpose and role within society. 57:40 Christina Parajon Skinner: So it does not inherently improve financial inclusion unless it's paired with accounts for all citizens, which the central bank itself has already recognized as infeasible. 59:15 Raúl Carrillo: Today, I support the call for a digital dollar system, including CBDC, Fed accounts, and Ecash. 1:02:15 Raúl Carrillo: Indeed, the only way to evolve beyond the surveillance status quo is to establish a direct digital dollar interface with consumers where the Fourth Amendment and other protections may actually apply. If we truly care about privacy, we should treat the banking and blockchain industries’ appeals to partnership as suspect, based on legal and technological grounds alone. We can build a retail CBDC and Fed account system with superior protections compared to what exists now and superior protections to the systems that are being built around the world currently. 1:02:50 Raúl Carrillo: So today I also advocate for the inclusion of digital cash, as detailed in the Electronic Cash and Hardware Security and Secured Hardware Act, the Ecash Act, re-introduced by Representative Lynch. Today, Ecash devices available on a smart card or a phone card would serve as digital counterparts to cold hard American cash. These devices would not make payments over the internet. Instead, they would store Treasury issued digital dollars on card hardware to enable everyday small dollar transactions for everyday people. These transactions would be subject to the BSA/AML regime, and as a boon to law enforcement, we can set privacy-sensitive security controls and caps on transactions and usage. However, the cards would in no instance be capable of generating data that companies and agencies can abuse. We preserve a place for privacy within public infrastructure. The Ecash Act harkens back to the past to the days when President Lincoln established the banking and cash system that we still use today. And it also harkens to an exciting, inclusive, safe digital future. 1:08:05 Paige Paridon: CBDC, because it would be a direct liability of the central bank, it would be perceived as the ultimate safe asset. So from that perspective, particularly during times of economic stress, it could attract depositors to pull their money out of the banking system to flee or run to a CBDC if there was perceived concern about the banking system or the financial system overall. So every dollar that currently resides in a bank account can be deployed for useful purposes in the economy, primarily through lending. Every dollar that is pulled out from the banking system and put into a CBDC is one less dollar that could be put to good economic use. And that is why we have a fundamental concern with a retail CBDC, given the flight-to-quality risks. 1:09:35 Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): 130 countries, representing 98% of the global economy, are now exploring digital versions of their currencies, including the United States. Almost half of these countries are in advanced development pilot or launch stages of their CBDCs. Can you discuss how CBDCs may shape the future global financial landscape? What would it mean for the United States if we instead chose to stay on the sidelines of this race? Raúl Carrillo: Thank you very much for the question, Representative Waters. My opinion is that it is incumbent upon the United States to provide leadership with respect to an inevitable process that is going to occur across the world. It is clear that we're all moving to digital fiat currency. The question is what sort of protections are going to attend digital fiat currency? 1:12:35 Raúl Carrillo: I hear a lot of concern across the political spectrum in this committee about the power of Silicon Valley. And if you do not create an alternative to the corporate systems that collect data, or promise to protect it and then collect it en mass, which is even worse and common in the blockchain industry, then what is going to happen is that Silicon Valley is going to win. And frankly, I don't think anybody here wants that. But in order to preserve the space that we have for public money and not make it a big tech enterprise, we, in fact, have to move forward with digital fiat currency. 1:13:50 Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): One of the key characteristics of sound money is that it facilitates permissionless, peer-to-peer transactions like cash. Currently, of the 100+ countries developing a central bank digital currency, none of them are developing a permissionless system. Every one of them is developing a permission system, including the United States Federal Reserve. So when we talk about permissions, we can kind of get something from the Federal Reserve's own report of that. They said in their report that it should be privacy-protected, intermediated, widely transferable, and identity-verified. Mr. Michel, Professor Skinner, in your view, is it possible to be both privacy-protected and identity-verified? Dr. Norbert Michel: No, in my view, it's not. Once the information is in a system, it's in a system and somebody is going to get it and it's going to get out. And I just quickly really want to say I'm very happy to hear everybody here on the panel is pro-Fourth Amendment. The problem, of course, as you know, is that the Bank Secrecy Act, and the anti money laundering regime runs right over the Fourth Amendment. So that's what needs to be fixed. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): It's already a problem in third party hands, but this wouldn't even be in third party hands. But, you know, Professor Skinner, what's your view? Christina Parajon Skinner: My view is no, that that's not possible right now, and central banks have essentially admitted as much. And to the extent such technology is or could be under development, it's extremely immature. And I think the point to emphasize here is that inherently there will be a tradeoff to the extent central banks create CBDC, between identity verification and privacy. And more than likely central banks will always choose identity verification because they will never feel comfortable sacrificing the national security goals that they see as accompanying robust identity verification. 1:24:35 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): Decisions in United States v. Miller and Maryland v. Smith gave us the third party doctrine. Under that doctrine. if you voluntarily provide information to a third party, the Fourth Amendment does not preclude the government from accessing it without a warrant. Dr. Michelle, can you explain how the third party doctrine has impacted Americans' financial privacy? Dr. Norbert Michel: Yes, they practically have none at the moment partly because of this. But I also want to clarify, because of something that was just said on the panel. The Fourth Amendment is the one that amends the Constitution to the United States, which protects American citizens from the government. So this is exactly the issue and it was brought up in the cases in the 70s, when the Bank Secrecy Act was challenged. If the Bank Secrecy Act were not there, the banks and financial institutions that we have would not be required by the government to collect the data that they are, that is a requirement in the Bank Secrecy Act. And everybody can go back and look at those cases, that was always an issue as to whether this was constitutional and in violation of possibly the Fourth Amendment. So between the combination of the Bank Secrecy Act, the Fourth Amendment issues, and the third party doctrine, Americans, although many of them don't realize it, have very little financial privacy at the moment. 1:26:05 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): How would the adoption of a CBDC further erode Americans' reasonable expectation of financial privacy? Dr. Norbert Michel: I believe it would remove the last layer that we have, quite simply, instead of having to go through the financial institution, the government would have that information either in a central database or a keystroke away. 1:31:05 Raúl Carrillo: We envision hardware devices. So those can be cards, similar in size to an existing debit or credit card, or they can be secured SIM cards, or something like it, on a phone that would enable hardware based transactions and for people to make payments as they do today with paper cash for everyday things without fear of government or corporate surveillance, which occurs in tandem when we use digital payments today. 1:32:20 Raúl Carrillo: I would clarify that the point of Ecash is that it does not operate online. It is actually open, permissionless, and private, in the sense that you don't need a blockchain or a banking intermediary. 1:35:45 Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI): In your testimony you wrote, "any transfer of $1 deposit from a commercial bank or credit union to a CBDC is $1 unavailable for lending to businesses or consumers." Can you expand a little bit on that statement about how an adoption of an intermediated CBDC would impact credit availability and the cost of banking services? Paige Paridon: Sure. Happy to, thank you. So I think there's a misconception generally, that $1 transferred from a deposit account to a CBDC would mean that CBDC would still be able to be used for lending and investment in the economy the way that dollar deposits currently are now. And that is not the case of CBDC, even if intermediated. In other words, even if the services including onboarding and other services that commercial banks currently provide, even if those services were provided by banks with respect to a consumer's CBDC, the fact is the bank would really only hold that CBDC in the same manner it holds an asset in custody. So it would have to essentially keep that CBDC under the proverbial mattress and it would not be able to be redeployed in the form of loans. 1:41:20 Paige Paridon: If it was an intermediated CBDC, banks would essentially hold CBDC as a custodian. That's right, they wouldn't be able to lend out some portion of the CBDC as they do deposits. 1:42:10 Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL): If you had 100%, CBDCs was all the money supply, you'd have no lending, right? So doesn't any proportional increase in the amount of a CBDC in an economy shrink the economy? Paige Paridon: Well, there could be shifts to other forms of ways to fund lending. Banks could borrow in the wholesale markets, they could potentially borrow from the Federal Reserve. So I'm not necessarily sure it's a one-to-one relationship. 1:46:25 Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE): Ms. Skinner, in your testimony, you mentioned how a CBDC could lead to the Federal Reserve's independence being threatened. Can you speak more on that? Christina Parajon Skinner: Yes, certainly. Thank you for the question. So in the first instance, to the extent the Federal Reserve doesn't change the composition of its balance sheet otherwise, issuing a CBDC will increase its liabilities, which means that it has to match that increase in liabilities by purchasing more assets. So the first thing that we would think about when the Fed would purchase more assets would be buying more Treasury securities. That being said, with the potential for the Fed to issue more CBDC, thereby giving it more headroom to buy more Treasury securities, would be likely to put some pressure on the Fed at some point down the line from the Treasury to issue that CBDC to absorb more government debt, which we call monetary finance or monetizing the deficit. Before World War Two, the Fed essentially operated under the thumb of the Treasury so that during wartime and otherwise, the Fed could effectively monetize the deficit. And really today, that's anathema to an independent central bank. There were other things that the Fed could also be pressured to buy to match an increase in CBDC, like corporate bonds. Now our recent experimentation in corporate bonds has put some question around whether this too could politicize a central bank because inevitably if central banks buy corporate bonds, they are picking winners and losers in the economy. Now, the Fed has been pretty neutral in its approach, but there has been a lot of pressure on the central bank to, for example, buy green bonds in order to facilitate a transition to a low carbon economy and certainly other central banks do actively green their corporate bond portfolios. 2:23:05 Dr. Norbert Michel: I believe this is a question of centralization versus decentralization. And if you have a CBDC, you ultimately have one major point of failure. One way of doing this would be to have the Fed have a database. Well, we know the Fed's been hacked. Even if the Fed has multiple databases, it's the Fed being hacked, as opposed to having multiple private companies all across the country. If Capital One, for example, has a hack or a cybersecurity problem, everybody in the country is not immediately at risk, only their customers, and that's a problem for them. 2:25:25 Rep. William Timmons (R-SC): Based on your research, can you explain what, if any, technological advantage a CBDC has over the private sector? Dr. Norbert Michel: None. And this should be this is properly viewed as a government reaction to a private innovation. We can call it Bitcoin or you could just call it distributed ledger technology in general. That's what this is about. This is about the government seeing an innovation that possibly threatens their control over the payment system and it is a movement to come up with something that takes that back and it just so happens that what they're coming up with here is something that goes even further than where we are without the CBDC. 2:26:45 Christina Parajon Skinner: The status of the dollar is undergirded by our commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, having a judiciary that enforces property rights, and perhaps most importantly, maintaining the dollar as a stable store of value. So for there, it's important that the Fed maintain its fight against inflation and with the issuance of the CBDC, there will absolutely be a propensity to over-issue, to for example, monetize the deficit and if that were to happen that would undermine the status of the dollar. 2:29:45 Paige Paridon: A so-called flight to quality is something that we fear would be almost inevitable. Were a retail CBDC to be issued by the Federal Reserve, in times particularly of financial stress or instability, a CBDC would be viewed likely as the ultimate safe asset and depositors would likely be incentivized to pull the deposits out of the banking system and put them into CBDCs as a safe asset, which would reduce the availability of deposits available to lend out, and moreover, increase the cost of credit. 2:31:10 Raúl Carrillo: President Lincoln created cash after the Civil War in order to help everybody have day to day transactions throughout our economy. Today we have cutting edge technology in various other sectors in the government, including in the US military where they use stored value cards known as Eagle Cash in order to make offline payments. 2:33:15 Yuval Rooz: If the US government were to decide to issue a retail CBDC, unlike wholesaled CBDC, I think that it is going to be critical for the government to show an evidence that there is no ability for the government to see transactions of citizens. I personally would be against such an act. 2:35:05 Yuval Rooz: If we wanted to have privacy included in the smart contract of the money, it would state that any movement of money would only be visible to the sender of money and the receiver of money for example, and the issuer of money would be blinded. So all that the issuer would see is the overall balance, but would not see any underlying movements of the money, for example. March 8, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Witnesses: Jerome Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Clips 53:50 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Turning to a topic that's been a subject here for nearly four years: Central Bank Digital Currencies. Article One of the Constitution, reserves coins and money issuance to the Congress and we've in turn delegated that to the US Treasury, which has since 1912 engaged the Federal Reserve as their fiscal agent. You've testified here many times before that to issue a Central Bank Digital Currency that would be have to be authorized by statute by Congress. Is that still your testimony? Jerome Powell: So that is absolutely the case as it relates to a retail CBDC. There are potential forms of a wholesale CBDC that you would need to look at, it's less clear. But we've always been talking about retail CBDC and that's something we would certainly need Congressional approval for. Rep. French Hill (R-AK): What would be a parameter on something that's not a retail CBDC where you think that could be issued in some form or fashion without Congress's direct statutory authorization? Jerome Powell: It would be, for example, something between banks, so it would look an awful lot like a bank reserve. And you might ask, Well, why would we need it? And that's a really good question, too. But just something that's literally within a wholesale market. Rep. French Hill (R-AK): But that speaks that you might have a blockchain between banks and the Fed using a Central Bank Digital Currency token to settle transactions institutionally inside the US. 1:15:40 Jerome Powell: We did go out for comment in general on a CBDC a year or so ago and I do expect that we'll go out, I can't give you a date, but we'll certainly go out and we engage with the public on an ongoing basis. We're also doing research on policy and also on technology. That's what we're up to. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): The Boston Fed has a partnership over there with the folks from MIT Media Lab, they're doing a great job, but it says here that the discussions would include technical experimentation. I was just wondering, at what level are you talking about making decisions on architecture for a retail CBDC? Jerome Powell: We're not at the stage of making any real decisions. What we're doing is experimenting, in kind of early stage experimentation. How would this work? Does it work? What's the best technology? What's the most efficient? We're really at an early stage but we're making progress on sort of technological issues. The policy issues are equally important though. You know, we haven't decided that this is something that the financial systems in the country want or need. So that's going to be very important. 1:18:15 Jerome Powell: A CBDC is going to be years in evaluation. 1:18:30 Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA): You know, before the greenback, everybody had their own currency. You know, you had rail rail companies, you had coal companies, you had, you know, state banks that were authorized to issue their own currency. But when the greenback came out, all of those various currencies went to zero, because the greenback had the full faith and credit of the United States behind it. I'm worried about a lot of these Stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies. Do they go to zero when we come up with a CBDC that has the full faith and credit of the United States behind it? We've got 1000s of these out there, and you've got people investing millions and millions of dollars, well trillions right now. And I'm just thinking if we had those advantages built into a CBDC? Wouldn't those alternatives go to zero, if they did not have the transparency and the full faith and credit that we enjoy? Jerome Powell: So certainly, unbacked cryptocurrencies that don't have any intrinsic value, but nonetheless, trade for a positive number, I've never understood the valuation of those. Stablecoins, many of them are really drawing on the credibility of the dollar. They're dollar denominated mainly, dollar-based reserves, although we don't know what's in the reserves because there's no regulation. 2:16:05 Jerome Powell: What we say about permissionless blockchains is that they have been vehicles for fraud -- Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): 0.24% if you follow your own report on fraud. It's a fraction of what it is with the US dollar. May 26, 2022 House Financial Services Committee Witness: Lael Brainard, Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Clips 2:08:30 Rep. John Rose (R-TN): Vice Chair Brainard, we saw how dangerous it can be when the government weaponizes the financial system for political purposes under the Obama administration's Operation Choke Point. More recently, the Canadian government instructed banks to freeze accounts linked to the trucker protests over vaccine mandates. Vice Chair Brainard, without appropriate safeguards, would a CBDC make it easier for the federal government to block individuals it disagrees with from accessing the financial system? Lael Brainard: So I really don't see CBDC as raising questions that are different from deposits and bank accounts, for instance. And the paper that was released in January, in particular, talks about an intermediary model, akin to what we see with commercial bank deposits, where the central bank doesn't have any direct interaction with consumers, doesn't see transactions by consumers, but there are intermediaries and, very importantly, including banks that would be responsible for both identity verification and for keeping that transaction data private. So in that sense, I don't see it it's as really any different than the issues that are raised with commercial bank deposits. June 16, 2021 Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy Witnesses: Eric B. Lorber, Senior Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Clips 43:33 Eric Lorber: The number of transactions which are elicit that use Bitcoin or blockchain technology is actually fairly low percentage wise it's in I believe, below 1% or somewhere around there. So it's fairly small. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD282: Chaos Fires McCarthy

9 oktober 2023 | 90 min

For the first time in U.S. history, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been fired from the job mid-term. This episode is a play by play of the drama that lead up to this historic event, including the passing of a temporary government funding law which triggered agents of chaos to give Kevin McCarthy the boot. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Government Shutdowns Clinton T. Brass et al. Updated December 10, 2018. Congressional Research Service. Christopher Hickey. September 29, 2023. CNN. Credit Rating Downgrade Elliot Smith. September 27, 2023. CNBC. Elliot Smith. August 2, 2023. CNBC. Funding Process Congressional Research Service. September 11, 2023. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. The Continuing Resolution [Jen’s Highlighted Version.] Wikipedia contributors. Retrieved October 8, 2023. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. The Ousting of Kevin McCarthy S. Dev. October 4, 2023. CBS News. Mini Racker. October 3, 2023. TIME. Audio Sources October 3, 2023 September 30, 2023 C-SPAN Clips Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): We will put a clean funding stop gap on the floor to keep government open for 45 days for the House and Senate to get their work done. We will also, knowing what had transpired through the summer -- the disasters in Florida, the horrendous fire in Hawaii and also disasters in California and Vermont -- we will put the supplemental portion that the President asked for in disaster thereto keeping the government open while we continue to do our work. September 30, 2023 Clips Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): Today, the most important priority is keeping government open. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY): To shut the government down would be disastrous for the American people, our military, and our economy. The time has come for everyone to put the American people above all interests and continue to do our work as responsible, reasonable, and serious legislators. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA): I cannot justify shutting down our entire government over obscure policy decisions. September 30, 2023 Clips Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The alternative to our action today -- an entirely avoidable government shutdown -- would not just pause our progress on these important priorities, it would actually set them back. September 29, 2023 Clips Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): This bill, that was just dropped on us a few hours ago, really is a piece of garbage, and that is putting it nicely. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): We need to make some serious cuts to our bloated government in areas where we don’t need it. We have way too many bureaucrats. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): As I have stated many times with these continuing resolutions, they tell us to pass a continuing resolution so we don’t have to pass another continuing resolution. Well, that line of thinking is like telling a crackhead that I am going to give you more crack to get you off of crack. The truth is we are just addicted to money, and now we are addicted to our great grandchildren’s money. September 28, 2023 Clips Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): I oppose a shutdown of government, in part because a shutdown would make the crisis that we face at our border even worse. September 27, 2023 Clips Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO): We don’t want continuing resolutions or omnibus bills. We want to go through the funding of the Federal Government bill by bill, sit down, and work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): Enough is enough. I am putting my countrymen first. I don’t think we should send another nickel to Ukraine. September 27, 2023 Clips Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): We have got to deal with the issue of government shutdowns. They hurt us more than help us. September 26, 2023 Clips Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX): It will be up to Democrats to make a choice. Will they shut down this open border or will they shut down the government of the United States. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on CNN September 21, 2023 Clips Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): This is a whole new concept of individuals that just want to burn the whole place down, but it doesn't work. September 21, 2023 Clips Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): Madam Speaker, this majority is a failure. The clowns are running the circus. The day Speaker MCCARTHY handed his gavel over to the clown show, this was the inevitable outcome. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): The Republican majority in this House is a joke. They wasted weeks talking about gas stoves, weeks arguing about book bans, weeks telling kids what soccer team they can play on, and now we are on the eve of a shutdown and they are doing nothing to stop it. Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): Shutting down the government is bad for the American people. It is an abdication of our responsibility. It is something we should not do September 20, 2023 Clips Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS): Let’s secure the border. Let’s decrease our country’s dependence on Communist China. Let’s commit to reigning in government spending. September 19, 2023 News 12 Westchester Clips Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): This is stupidity, the idea we are going to shut the government down when we don’t control the Senate, we don’t control the White House. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY): If the clown show of colleagues that refuse to actually govern does not want to pass a CR, I will do everything we need to do to make sure a CR passes. The bottom line here is this: we’re not shutting the government down. September 19, 2023 Clips Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): It is simply an inappropriate tool in the toolbox, in my opinion. I have seen both sides use it. My side, sadly, has used it more. I hope we don’t do it this time. September 19, 2023 PBS NewsHour Clips Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC): A shutdown is not the best thing in the world, but continued path toward bankruptcy is not an option either, for me. September 18, 2023 Clips Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): Mr. Speaker, I’m not voting for a Continuing Resolution. I’m not voting to continue the failure, and the waste, and the corruption, and the election interference. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): It is only a review of single-subject spending bills that will save this country and allow us to tweeze through these programs and force these agencies to stand up and defend their budget. September 13, 2023 Clips Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): We should make border security a condition of any continuing resolution when the fiscal year ends on September 30. September 12, 2023 Clips Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): No continuing resolutions; individual spending bills or bust. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): Individual, single-subject spending bills that would allow us to have specific review, programmatic analysis, and that would allow us to zero out the salaries of the bureaucrats who have broken bad, targeted President Trump, or cut sweetheart deals for Hunter Biden. Rep. George Santos (R-NY): A shutdown would only hurt the very people who are putting their lives at risk for all of us. YouTube Executive Producer Recommended Episodes Music by Editing Production Assistance Cover Art Designed by Clare Kuntz Balcer with images from and

CD281: Private Policing of the Organ Transplant Network

18 september 2023 | 85 min

The system for coordinating organ donations and transplants in the United States is broken, according to experts who have testified over the course of many years to Congress. In this episode, hear their testimony about what is wrong with the current system and then we’ll examine the bill that aims to fix the problems. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources August 3, 2022. Senate Finance Committee. Lenny Bernstein and Todd C. Frankel. August 3, 2022. The Washington Post. February 10, 2020. Senate Finance Committee. The Bill Audio Sources July 20, 2023 Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Health Care Witnesses: LaQuayia Goldring, Patient Molly J. McCarthy, Vice Chair & Region 6 Patient Affairs Committee Representative, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Matthew Wadsworth, President and CEO, Life Connection of Ohio Raymond J. Lynch, MD, MS, FACS, Professor of Surgery and Director of Transplantation Quality and Outcomes, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Donna R. Cryer, JD, Founder and CEO, Global Liver Institute Clips 30:40 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): HRSA, the Health Resources Agency, is on track to begin the contract process this fall and we're just going to be working here to complement their effort. 36:30 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): In 2005, I started the investigation of the deadly failures of UNOS, the monopoly tasked with managing the US organ donation system. Since then, more than 200,000 patients have needlessly died on the organ waiting list. There's a reason that I call UNOS the fox guarding the hen house. For nearly two decades, UNOS has concealed serious problems [at] the nation's organ procurement organizations, known as OPOs, instead of working to uncover and correct the corruption. This human tragedy is even more horrific because many of these deaths were preventable. They were the result of [a] corrupt, unaccountable monopoly that operates more like a cartel than a public servant. 44:45 LaQuayia Goldring: As a toddler, at the age of three, I was diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer that took the function of my left kidney. And when I was 17, I went back into complete renal failure and I received a first kidney transplant at that time. Unfortunately, in 2015, I went back into kidney failure. And at that time, I wasn't ready for another transplant, but I didn't have a choice but to go back on dialysis. I've been waiting nine agonizing years for a transplant, dependent upon a dialysis machine five days a week, just to be able to live. I was told that I would receive a kidney transplant within three to five years. But yet I am still waiting. I am undergoing monthly surgeries just to be able to get my dialysis access to work so that I can continue to live until I get a transplant. The UNOS waitlist is not like one to 100, where everybody thinks you get a number. I'm never notified on where I stand on the list or when I will get the call. I have to depend on an algorithm to make the decision of what my fate will be. 47:55 LaQuayia Goldring: Just a few weeks ago, a donor family reached out to me to be a directed kidney donor, meaning they chose me specifically for a kidney transplant. But unfortunately, due to the errors in the UNOS technology, I was listed as inactive and this was a clerical error. And all that they told me was this was a clerical error, and they could not figure out why I was inactive. But when it came down to it, I'm actually active on the transplant list. 51:45 Molly McCarthy: The Federal monopoly contractor managing the organ donation system, UNOS, is an unmitigated failure. And its leadership spends more time attacking critics than it does taking steps to fix the system. I've seen this firsthand in my five years as a patient volunteer with the OPTN and three years ago, I stepped into the role of Vice Chair of the Patient Affairs Committee, or PAC. 53:45 Molly McCarthy: Further, I have been called by a board member telling me to stop focusing on system outage and downtime of the UNOS tech system. He told me that having downtime wasn't a big deal at all, "the donors are dead anyway." That comment speaks volumes to me about the lack of empathy and respect UNOS has for donor families. 55:00 Molly McCarthy: Congress needs to break up the UNOS monopoly by passing 1668, ensuring that HHS uses its authority to replace UNOS as its contractor. 1:00:15 Matt Wadsworth: Break up the OPTN contract and allow for competition. 1:00:40 Matt Wadsworth: I commend this committee for introducing legislation to finally break up this monopoly and I stand ready to work with you in any way possible to ensure that this bill passes. It's the only way this industry will be able to save more patients' lives. 1:02:10 Dr. Raymond Lynch: I want to differentiate between organ donation, which is the altruistic decision of the donor patient and their family, and organ procurement, which is the clinical care provided by OPO staff. This is what turns the gift of donation into the usable organs for transplant. Organ procurement is a clinical specialty. It's the last medical care that many patients will ever receive. It's reimbursed by the federal government and it's administered by OPOs that are each the only provider in the territory to which they hold federal contracts. Right now patient care delivered by OPOs is some of the least visible in American healthcare. I can't tell you how many patients were evaluated by OPO workers in the US in 2022. I can't tell you how many patients were examined, or how many families were given information about donation, or how many times an OPO worker even showed up to a hospital to do this clinical duty. This lack of information about what OPO providers actually do for patients is a root cause of the variability in rates of organ procurement around the country. My research has shown that what we call OPO performance is a measurable restriction on the supply of organs that results in the unnecessary deaths of patients with organ failure. For example, if the lowest performing OPOs from around the country had just reached the national median over a recent seven year period, there would have been 4957 more organ donors, yielding an estimated 11,707 additional organs for transplant. Because many OPOs operate in a low quality data environment and without appropriate oversight, almost 5,000 patients did not get adequate organ procurement care, and nearly 12,000 other patients did not receive life saving transplants. 1:03:55 Dr. Raymond Lynch: OPO clinical work is currently not visible, it's not benchmarkable, and it's not able to be adequately evaluated, analyzed, or compared. However, much of the hidden data about how OPOs provide care to patients is known to one entity and that entity is UNOS. 1:05:20 Dr. Raymond Lynch: We need a new network of highly skilled specialist organizations, each attending to areas of expertise in the management of the OPTN contract. 1:21:15 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): When we look at OPTN, and look at the Securing Organ Procurement Act, the bill would strip the nonprofit requirement for the manager of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which would open the door for profiting from organ procurement and donation. And to me, this is something that I think many people really fear, especially people that are on a waitlist. And so what I would like for you to do is to address that and address those concerns. And why or why not you think the Act has it right. Dr. Raymond Lynch: Thank you, Senator. I think it's unfortunate that people would be afraid of that and it needs to be changed. Many of the patients that you referenced are waitlisted at for-profit hospitals. For-profit is a part of American healthcare. And I can tell you that our not-for-profit entity doesn't work. And there are for-profit hospitals and for-profit transplant centers that do work. So patients don't need to be afraid of that. They do need to be afraid of the status quo. 1:28:30 Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): Ms. Cryer, do you have any views as to why it's much lower percentage chances for a racial minority to be able to have a transplant? Donna Cryer: Yes. And it really does come down to UNOS not doing its job of overseeing the organ procurement organizations. We know from many studies that black and brown communities donate organs in the same percentage they are the population. So it is not a problem of willingness to donate. It is a problem, as Miss Goldring was starting to discuss, about UNOS not ensuring that OPOs go out into the communities, develop relationships far before that horrible decision is needed to [be] made to donate the organs of a family member. 1:56:45 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): And among the many reforms the legislation would support HRSA's proposal to break up the OPTN monopoly contract into multiple smaller contracts, which would allow some competition and allow the best vendors in the business to manage different parts of the transplant network operation. That means hiring IT experts to do the IT. It means hiring logistics experts to do logistics, and so on. 1:57:15 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): UNOS does not want to lose control, so they're pushing to have the government limit eligibility only to nonprofit vendors that have worked in the past on organ donation, meaning, for instance, that the IT company that is hired to run OPTNs computers systems would have had to have worked on an organ transplant network in the past and be a nonprofit. So Ms. McCarthy, the requirement UNOS wants would seem to make it so that only one organization could apply for the new contract: UNOS. 1:58:35 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Right now, Congress has an opportunity to root out corruption in this system, but if we don't act before the current contract expires we won't have another shot for years. August 3, 2022 Senate Committee on Finance Witnesses: Brian Shepard, CEO, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Diane Brockmeier, RN, President and CEO, Mid-America Transplant Barry Friedman, RN, Executive Director, AdventHealth Transplant Institute Calvin Henry, Region 3 Patient Affairs Committee Representative, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Jayme Locke, M.D., MPH, Director, Division of Transplantation, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham Clips 36:15 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): A 1984 law created the first computerized system to match sick patients with the organs they need. It was named the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Someone needed to manage that system for the whole country, so the government sought to contract an organization to run it. UNOS was the only bidder for that first contract in 1986. The contract has come up for bid seven other times, UNOS has won all seven. Today, the network UNOS overseas is made up of nearly 400 members, including 252 transplant centers, and 57 regional organizations known as Organ Procurement Organizations, or OPOs. Each OPO is a defined geographic service network. Families sitting in a hospital room thinking about donating a loved one's organs does not have a choice of OPOs. 37:40 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Between 2010 and 2020, more than 1,100 complaints were filed by patients and families, staff, transplant centers, and others. The nature of these complaints runs the gamut. For example, in a number of cases, OPOs had failed to complete critical mandatory tests for matters like blood types, diseases, and infection. Our investigation found one patient died after being transplanted with lungs that a South Carolina OPO marked with the wrong blood type. Similar blood type errors happened elsewhere and patients developed serious illness. Some had to have organs removed after transplant. Another patient was told he would likely die within three years after an OPO in Ohio supplied him with a heart from a donor who had died of a malignant brain tumor. UNOS did not pursue any disciplinary action. In a case from Florida, another patient contracted cancer from transplanted organs and the OPO sat on the evidence for months. In total, our investigation found that between 2008 and 2015, and 249 transplant recipients developed a disease from transplanted organs. More than a quarter of them died. 38:55 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Delivering organs has been another source of life threatening errors. We found 53 such complaints between 2010 and 2020, as well as evidence that this was just the tip of the iceberg. In some cases, couriers missed a flight. In others, the organs were abandoned at airports. Some organs were never picked up. Many of these failures resulted in organs being discarded. 39:20 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): It's reasonable to assume that many more errors are going unreported. Why? Because filing official complaints with UNOS appears to accomplish zero productive oversight or reform. Organ transplant professionals repeatedly told the Finance Committee that the complaint process was, and I quote here, "a black hole." Complaints went in, UNOS went quiet. In interviews with the Committee UNOS leaders have dragged their feet, dodged tough questions, and shifted responsibility onto others. investigations and disciplinary measures rarely amount to much more than a slap on the wrist. Only one time -- just once -- has UNOS recommended that an OPO lose their certification. 55:05 Diane Brockmeier: We must update the archaic technology system at UNOS. As OPOs, we are required to work with UNOS technology DonorNet every day. DonorNet is outdated, difficult to us,e and often slow to function when every minute counts. Manual entry subjects it to error and OPO and Transplant Center staff are not empowered with the right information when time is critical. I did serve in leadership roles on the OPO Committee from 2017 to 2022. Committee members and industry leaders voiced repeated requests to improve DonorNet. The consistent response was UNOS IT did not have the bandwidth to address this work. The limitations of the UNOS technology are delaying and denying transplants to patients that are dying on the waitlist. Poor technology impacts the disturbingly high kidney discard rate in the United States, where one in four kidneys never make it to a patient for transplantation. Critical time is lost due to the inefficiency of DonorNet, wasting time on offers that will not be accepted. Of course an available organ should be offered to the patient in this sequence. However, far too much of the matching, particularly on older donors and organs that are difficult to place, are left to the individual OPOs and transplant centers to find each other despite, rather than facilitated by, UNOS technology. Mid-America Transplant intentionally identifies surgeons who accept kidneys that have been repeatedly turned down many times. These are life saving options for those patients. In May of 2022, one of these patients was number 18,193 on the list. Relying on DonorNet alone, that kidney would never had been placed and the chance to save a life would have been wasted. 55:20 Diane Brockmeier: UNOS lacks urgency and accountability around identifying and remediating this preventable loss of organs, and they are not required to publicly report adverse events when patients are harmed, organs are lost, or the quality of patient care is deemed unsafe. UNOS does not require clinical training, licensure, or certification standards for OPO staff delivering critical patient care. In this environment, who's looking out for the patient? Who's being held accountable for poor patient care? No OPO has ever actually been decertified, regardless of its performance or its safety record. 57:55 Diane Brockmeier: When an OPO goes out of sequence to place an organ that would otherwise be thrown away, UNOS requires an explanation; however, when organs are recovered and discarded, you must remain silent. 58:05 Diane Brockmeier: We must remove conflicts to ensure effective governance. From 2018 to 2020, I served as a board member for the OPTN. Serving on the board of the OPTN automatically assigns membership to the UNOS board. My board experience revealed that at times UNOS actions are not aligned with its fundamental vision of a life saving transplant for everyone in need. How can you fairly represent the country's interest and a contractor's interest at the same time? 58:35 Diane Brockmeier: Board members are often kept in the dark about critical matters and are marginalized, particularly if they express views that differ from UNOS leadership. Preparatory small group calls are conducted prior to board meetings to explore voting intentions, and if the board member was not aligned with the opinion of UNOS leadership, follow up calls are initiated. Fellow board members report feeling pressured to vote in accordance with UNOS leadership. 59:10 Diane Brockmeier: To protect patients, I urge Congress and the administration to separate the OPTN functions into different contracts so that patients can be served by best-in-class vendors, to immediately separate the boards of the OPTN and OPTN contractors, and to ensure that patients are safeguarded through open data from both the OPTN and OPOs. 1:00:45 Barry Friedman: Approximately 23% of kidneys procured from deceased donors are not used and discarded, resulting in preventable deaths 1:00:55 Barry Friedman: Organ transportation is a process left to federally designated Organ Procurement Organizations, OPOs. Currently, they develop their own relationships with couriers, rely on airlines, charter flights, ground transportation, and federal agencies to facilitate transportation. In many cases, organs must connect from one flight to another, leaving airline personnel responsible for transfers. While anyone can track their Amazon or FedEx package, there is currently no consistent way of tracking these life saving organs. 1:01:45 Barry Friedman: Currently there is no requirement for OPOs to use tracking systems. 1:02:20 Barry Friedman: I also believe there's a conflict of interest related to the management of IT functions by UNOS, as the IT tools they offer transplant centers come with additional costs, despite these being essential for the safety and management of organs. 1:02:35 Barry Friedman: UNOS is not effectively screening organ donors so that they can be quickly directed to transplant programs. UNOS asks centers to voluntarily opt out of certain organs via a filtering process. As a result, OPOs waste valuable time making organ offers to centers that will never accept them. Time wasted equates to prolonged cold ischemic time and organs not placed, resulting in lost organ transplant opportunities. 1:03:10 Barry Friedman: Due to the limited expertise that UNOS has in the placement of organs, it would be best if they were no longer responsible for the development of organ placement practices. The UNOS policy making [process] lacks transparency. Currently OPTN board members concurrently serve as the board members of UNOS, which creates a conflict of interest that contributes to this lack of transparency. UNOS committees are formed in a vacuum. There is no call for nominations and no data shared with the transplant community to explain the rationale behind decisions that create policy change. 1:11:35 Dr. Jayme Locke: The most powerful thing to know about this is that every organ represents a life. We can never forget that. Imagine having a medication you need to live being thrown away simply because someone took too long to get it to you. Your life quite literally in a trash can. Organs are no different. They too have shelf lives and they are measured in hours. Discarded organs and transportation errors may sound abstract, but let me make this negligence real for you. In 2014, I received a kidney that arrived frozen, it was an ice cube you could put in your drink. The intended recipient was sensitized, meaning difficult to match. The only thing we could do was tell the waiting patient that due to the lack of transportation safeguard, the kidney had to be thrown in the trash, the final generous act of a donor in Maryland. In 2017, I received a kidney that arrived in a box that appeared to have tire marks on it. The box was squished and the container inside had been ruptured. We were lucky and were able to salvage the kidney for transplant. But why should luck even play a role? 1:12:45 Dr. Jayme Locke: In one week, I received four kidneys from four different OPOs, each with basic errors that led to the need to throw away those life saving organs. One due to a botched kidney biopsy into the kidneys collecting system, another because of a lower pole artery that had been cut during procurement that could have been fixed if someone involved had assessed the kidney for damage and flushed it before packing, but that didn't happen. Two others arrived to me blue, meaning they hadn't been flushed either. 1:13:15 Dr. Jayme Locke: Opacity at UNOS means that we have no idea how often basic mistakes happen across the country, nor can we have any confidence that anything is being done to redress such errors so they don't keep happening. 1:13:40 Dr. Jayme Locke: Women who have been pregnant, especially multiple times, are harder to match, contributing to both gender and racial disparities in access to transplant. This is a very real example of how a constrained pool of organs and high discards disproportionately hurt women and women of color, who are more likely to have multiple pregnancies. 1:14:25 Dr. Jayme Locke: Number one, immediately separate the OPTN board from any of the boards of any contractors. Number two, bring in real experts to ensure our patients are served by the best of the best in each field, separating out key functions of the OPTN, including policy, technology, and logistics. And number three, ensure that patients are safer by holding all contractors accountable through public adverse event reporting and immediate redressing of problems. 1:22:00 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The system doesn't seem to be fair to racial minorities or people living in rural communities. So what are your efforts underway to understand the root causes and help make the system fairer to patients on the waiting list to explain the factors that result in the disparity for minorities in rural populations in the process? And how can the federal government address a problem if we have to be involved in addressing it? Dr. Jayme Locke: One of the most important things that we don't currently do is we don't actually account for disease burden in terms of examining our waiting lists. So we have no way of knowing if we're actually serving the correct people, if the correct people are actually making it to the waiting list. Disease burden is super important because it not only identifies the individuals who are in need of transplantation, but it also speaks to supply. So areas with high rates of end stage kidney disease burden, like the southeastern United States are going to have much lower supply. And those waiting lists predominantly consist of African American or Black individuals. So if you want to make a truly equitable organ system, you have to essentially get more organs to those areas where there are higher disease burdens. I think the other thing is that we have to have more focus on how we approach donor families and make sure that we have cultural competence as a part of our OPOs, and how they approach families to ensure that we're not marginalizing minority families with regard to the organ donation process. 1:30:00 Brian Shepard: The OPTN IT system that UNOS operates has 99.99% uptime. It is a highly reliable system. We are audited annually by HRSA.... Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): My information shows it's had 17 days down since I think 1999. That's not correct? Brian Shepard: In 23 years, yes, sir. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): Okay, well, every day there's a loss of life, isn't it? Brian Shepard: That's the total amount of time over the couse of -- Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): I hope our national event system isn't down 17 days a year. Brian Shepard: The system has never been down for a day. And to my knowledge, and I have not been at UNOS since 1999, there's been maybe one event that was longer than an hour, and that was three hours. But the total amount of time since 1999 -- Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD): So you're satisfied with your technology? You think you have the right technology? You're satisfied with your tracking systems now? You think everything is okay? Brian Shepard: We constantly improve our technology. We're subjected to 3 million attempts a day to hack into the patient database and we successfully repelled them all. So we are never satisfied with our technology, but we do maintain 99.99% uptime. We disagree with the USDS analysis of our systems. 1:37:25 Brian Shepard: If you're asking whether UNOS can prevent an OPO from operating or for being an OPO -- Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH: Well not prevent them, but require them to do something .You don't have the ability to require them...? Brian Shepard: The peer review process has significant persuasive authority, but all the payment authority and all the certification and decertification authority live at CMS. 1:39:00 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH: Do you think there should be tracking of organs in transit? Brian Shepard: I think that's a very beneficial thing. UNOS provides an optional service that a quarter of OPOs use. Many OPOs also use other commercially available trackers to do that. There is not a single requirement to use a particular system. 1:41:55 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Mr. Shepherd, you are the CEO of UNOS. We have documented these problems and you've received more than 1000 complaints in the last decade alone. So tell me, in the 36 years that UNOS has had the contract to run our national organ system, how many times has UNOS declared its OPO Members, any OPO members, not in good standing. Brian Shepard: Two times, Senator. 1:43:20 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): How many times has UNOS put an OPO on probation? Brian Shepard: I don't know that number off the top of my head, but it's not a large number. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): It's not large, in fact it's three. 1:45:20 Brian Shepard: Approximately 10% of the budget of this contract is taxpayer funded. The rest of that is paid by hospitals when they list patients. 1:49:30 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): Once an OPO is designated not in good standing, Senator Warren referred to this as toothless. It does seem toothless to me. I'll give you an opportunity, Mr. Shepherd, to disabuse me of that notion and indicate for me what penalties or sanctions are actually placed on an OPO when they are designated not in good standing. Brian Shepard: The statute does not give UNOS any authority to offer sanctions like that. The certification, decertification, payment authorities belong entirely to CMS. UNOS's statute doesn't give us the ability -- Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): So it is toothless in that sense. Brian Shepard: It is designed to be, by regulation and contract, a quality improvement process, in contrast to the oversight process operated by a federal agency. 1:51:15 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): To what extent is UNOS currently tracking the status of all the organs in transit at any given time? Brian Shepard: UNOS does not coordinate transportation or track organs in transit. We do provide a service that OPOs can use to use GPS trackers. Some of the OPOs use ours and some use other commercially available products. Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): So why is it, and how does UNOS plan to optimize organ delivery if you don't have 100% visibility into where they are at any given time? Brian Shepard: I think that the GPS products that we offer and that other people offer are valuable, they do help in the delivery of kidneys. Only kidneys travel unaccompanied, so this is a kidney issue. But I do think that GPS trackers are valuable and I think that's why you've seen more and more OPOs use them. 1:52:50 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Mr. Shepherd has said twice, with respect to this whole question of the power to decertify an OPO, that CMS has the power to do it. UNOS also has the power to refer an OPO for decertification under the OPTN final rule. That has been done exactly once. So I just wanted it understood with respect to making sure the committee has got what's really going on with respect to decertifying OPOs. 2:00:15 Dr. Jayme Locke: Obviously people have described that we have about a 25% kidney discard, so one in four. So if you look at numbers last year, these are rough numbers, but that'd be about 8000 kidneys. And really, I think, in some ways, these are kind of a victim of an entrenched and cumbersome allocation algorithms that are very ordinal, you have to go sort of in order, when data clearly have shown that introduction of multiple simultaneous expiring offers would result in more efficient placement of kidneys and this would decrease our cold ischemia time. 2:00:50 Dr. Jayme Locke: So if you take UNOS's organ center, they have a very rigid system, for example, for finding flights and lack either an ability or interest in thinking outside the box. So, for example, if there are no direct flights from California to Birmingham, Alabama, instead of looking for a flight from San Francisco to Atlanta, understanding that a courier could then pick it up in Atlanta and drive it the two hours, they'll instead put on a flight from SFO to Atlanta and allow it to go to cargo hold overnight, where it literally is rotting, if you will, and we're putting extra time on it. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Just to make sure everybody gets this. You're saying you've seen instances of something being put in cargo hold when it is very likely to rot? Dr. Jayme Locke: That is correct. So if the kidney arrives after 10pm at the Atlanta airport, it goes to cargo hold. We discovered that and made calls to the airlines ourselves and after several calls to the airlines, of course they were mortified, not understanding that that was what was happening and actually had their manager meet our courier and we were able to get the kidney out of cargo hold, but this went on before we figured out what was happening because essentially they fly it in, it sits in cargo hold, it comes out the next morning to catch the next flight. Instead of thinking outside the box: if we just get it to Atlanta, it's drivable to Birmingham. And those hours make a difference. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): That sounds way too logical for what UNOS has been up to. 2:03:05 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Miss Brockmeier, UNOS has developed this organ tracking system. Do you all use it? I'm curious what you think of it. Diane Brockmeier: Thank you for the question, Senator. We did use and participate in the beta pilot through UNOS and made the decision to not move forward using their product, and have sought a commercial alternative. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): And why was that? Diane Brockmeier: Part of the issues were some service related issues, the lack of the interconnectivity that we wanted to be able to facilitate a more expedited visual tracking of where the organ was. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Was the tracking technology low quality? Diane Brockmeier: Yes, sir. 2:11:25 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): All right, let's talk for a moment about the boards that are supposed to be overseeing these, because it looks to me like there's a serious conflict of interest here and I'll send this to Ms. Brockmeier, and perhaps you'd like to get to it as well, Mr. Friedman. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the formal title of the organ network that operates under federal contract administered by HHS, and UNOS, which is the contractor that operates the network and controls information about the network, have the same boards of directors, despite efforts by the government to separate them. That means the people who look out for the best interests of UNOS, the multimillion dollar nonprofit, are the same people who look out for the interests of the entire organ transplant network. Sure sounds like a conflict to me. 2:12:55 Diane Brockmeier: I think there should be an independent board. I think the division of the responsibilities of the board and by the inherent way that they're structured, do pose conflicts. It would be like if you had an organization that was a supporting organization, you'd want to hold it accountable for its performance. And the current structure really limits that opportunity. 2:19:50 Dr. Jayme Locke: And if you think about IT, something as simple as having a system where we can more easily put in unacceptable antigens, this was a debate for many years. So for context, we list unacceptable antigens in the system that allows us to better match kidneys so that when someone comes up on the match run, we have a high probability that there'll be a good tissue match. Well, that took forever and we couldn't really get our unacceptable antigens in, so routinely people get offered kidneys that aren't going to be a match, and you have to get through all of those before you can get to the person that they really should go to. Those are simple examples. But if we could really have transparency and accountability around those kinds of things, we could save more lives. 2:23:10 Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Mr. Shepherd told Senator Warren that only 10% of UNOS funds come from taxpayer money and the rest comes from fees paid by transplant centers who add patients to the list. But the fact is, Medicare is the largest payer of the fees, for example, for kidneys. So we're talking about inefficiency, inefficiency that puts patients at risk. And certainly, taxpayer dollars are used to cover some of these practices. May 4, 2021 House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Witnesses: Tonya Ingram, Patient Waiting for a Transplant Dr. Dara Kass, Living Donor and Mother of Transplant Recipient LaQuayia Goldring, Patient Waiting for a Transplant Steve Miller, CEO, Association for Organ Procurement Organizations Joe Ferreira, President, Association for Organ Procurement Organizations Matt Wadsworth, President and CEO, Life Connection of Ohio Dr. Seth Karp, Director, Vanderbilt Transplant Center Donna Cryer, President and CEO, Global Liver Institute Clips 5:15 Tonya Ingram: The Organ Procurement Organization that serves Los Angeles, where I live, is failing according to the federal government. In fact, it's one of the worst in the country. One analysis showed it only recovered 31% of potential organ donors. Audits in previous years found that LA's OPO has misspent taxpayer dollars on retreats to five star hotels and Rose Bowl tickets. The CEO makes more than $900,000. Even still, the LA OPO has not lost its government contract and it has five more years to go. 30:00 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Unusual among Medicare programs, their costs are 100% reimbursed, even costs unrelated to care. So, extravagant executive compensation and luxury perks may be passed off onto the taxpayer. 46:55 Dr. Seth Karp: We have 10 hours to get a liver from the donor to the recipient, and about one hour to sew it in. For heart, we have about six hours. Time matters. 47:55 Dr. Seth Karp: Last year, I had the opportunity to co-write a viewpoint in one of the journals of the American Medical Association with TJ Patel, former Chief Data Scientist of the United States. In that article, we provided evidence that the metrics used to judge the performance of organ procurement organizations are basically useless. Until the recent OPO Final Rule, performance was self-reported, and OPO employees admitted to having gamed the system. When threatened with decertification, one of the OPOs themselves successfully argued that because the performance data were self reported and unaudited, they failed to meet a reasonable standard and the OPO should not be held accountable. In other words for decades, the metrics supposed to measure performance didn't measure performance, and the results have been disastrous, as you have heard. 49:45 Dr. Seth Karp: Whenever I, and quite frankly most everyone else in the field, gives a talk on transplantation, we usually make two points. The first is that organ transplantation is a miracle of modern medicine. The second is the tragedy that there are not enough organs for everyone who needs one. I no longer use the second point, because I don't believe it. Based on my work, I believe that there are enough organs for patients who require hearts, lungs, and probably livers, and we can make a huge improvement in the number of kidneys available. In addition to improving OPO performance, new technologies already exist to dramatically increase the organ supply. We need a structure to drive rapid improvement in our system. 54:00 Joe Ferreira: One common misconception is that OPOs are solely responsible for the entire donation and transplantation system, when, in fact, OPOs are the intermediary entity and their success is highly dependent on collaborations with hospitals and transplant programs. At the start of the donation process, hospitals are responsible for notifying any OPO in a timely manner when a patient is on a ventilator and meets medical criteria to be an organ donor. Additionally, transplant centers must make the decision whether to accept or decline the organs offered by OPOs. 57:55 Matt Wadsworth: As geographic monopolies, OPOs are not subject to any competitive pressure to provide high service. As the only major program in all of health care 100% reimbursed for all costs, we do not face financial pressures to allocate resources intelligently. 1:02:10 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Mr. Ferreira, I'd like to turn to you. You run the OPO called the Nevada Donor Network. I have your OPO's 2019 financial statement filed with the CMS. It appears that your OPO spent roughly $6 million in 2019 on administrative and general expenses. Interestingly, in 2019, I see your OPO spent approximately $146,000 on travel meetings and seminars alone. And your itemization of Administrative and General has an interesting line item for $576,000 for "ANG". It took me a minute but that means you have an "Administrative and General" subcategory in your "Administrative and General" category. Very vague. Now Mr. Ferreira, I was informed by Mr. Wadsworth, a former executive of yours at the Nevada Donor Network, that your OPO has season tickets to the NHL's Las Vegas Golden Knights, isn't that correct? Joe Ferreira: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And you also have season tickets to the Las Vegas Raiders too, right? Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And according to Mr. Wadsworth and others, your OPO took a board retreat to Napa Valley in 2018. Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And Sonoma in 2019, right? Joe Ferreira: That is correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Mr. Ferreira, what you're spending on the Raiders, the Golden Knights, Napa Valley and Sonoma have one thing in common: they have nothing to do with recovering organs. 1:10:30 Dr. Seth Karp: In 2019, there were six heart transplants that were performed using donors after circulatory determination of death. And I don't want to get into the technical aspects of that. But in 2019, that number was six. In 2020, that number was 126. This is a new technology. This is a way that we can increase the number of heart transplants done in United States dramatically. And if we think that there were 500 patients in the United States waiting for a heart in 2020, 500 patients that either died or were delisted because they were too sick, and you think in one year, using a technology, we got another 100 transplants, if we could get another 500 transplants out of that technology, we could almost eliminate deaths on the on the heart transplant waiting list. That technology exists. It exists today. But we don't have a mechanism for getting it out to everybody that could use it and it's going to run itself through the system, it's going to take too much time. 1:24:05 Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): You know, I'm a little disappointed that we're discussing race as a factor in organ transplant. We're all one race in my opinion; color makes no difference to me. We're the human race. And to me, the interjection of race into this discussion is very concerning. Discrimination based on race was outlawed almost 60 years ago through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, I'm not a medical doctor, and I have very little knowledge of medicine. But last year, there was an article that came out in LifeSource and it says, "Does my race and ethnicity matter in organ donation?" And so my question here is for Dr. Karp. In your experience, would you agree that a donor's organs are more likely to be a clinical match for a recipient of the same ethnicity? Could you comment on that? Is that actually a factor, or not? I mean, we're all human beings, we all, you know, have similar bodies. Dr. Seth Karp: Yes. So there definitely are certain HLA types that are more common. That is race-based. So the answer to that question is yes. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): Okay. All right. And so if you have more of one particular race, more donations of one particular race, then naturally you would have more actual matches of that particular race. Is that correct? Dr. Seth Karp: That would tend to be the case. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): Okay. All right. All right. Okay, that's just a question that I wanted to clear up here. 1:34:20 Donna Cryer: We'd like to see investments in languages that are spoken by the community. Educational resources should be, as required by law, for those with limited English proficiency. They should be in the languages spoken by the community. They should be hiring diverse staff to have those most crucial conversations with families. The data shows, and certainly experience and common sense shows as well, that having people of color approaching families of color results in more donations. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD280: Corporate Junk Fees

4 september 2023 | 65 min

Do you hate hidden hotel, housing, airline, ticketing, banking, and other corporate fees? Do you want Congress to do something about them? In this episode, learn about the wide range of unreasonable fees being reported to Congress during hearings and examine what proposals could have bipartisan support. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes FTC Authority Ronald Mann. Apr 23, 2021. SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2021. Junk Fee Overview Ashish A. Pradhan. May 19, 2023. The National Law Review. Will Kenton. January 24, 2023. Investopedia. Brian Deese et al. October 26, 2022. White House Briefing Room Blog. October 20, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Brian Canfield et al. July 7, 2021. Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law. Internet *Federal Communications Commission Healthcare August 8, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Banking/Payments Lindsey D. Johnson. July 26, 2023. Consumer Bankers Association. July 11, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. Offices of Consumer Populations and Markets. May 23, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. October 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. September 28, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. August 16, 2022. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. August 16, 2022. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Joe Valenti. March 30, 2022. * Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Blog. January 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 7, 2020. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 28, 2018. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Housing July 19, 2023. White House Briefing Room. March 14, 2023. National Consumer Law Center. Jennifer Ludden. January 13, 2023. WBUR. Airlines Reid Bramblett. Frommer’s. Suzanne Rowan Kelleher. Mar 7, 2023. Forbes. U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation. December 13, 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation. November 2022. Statista. Rosie Spinks. June 1, 2018. Quartz. May 2011. Jones Day. Hotels November 17, 2021. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Christina Jelski. Mar 12, 2021. Travel Weekly. November 28, 2012. The Federal Trade Commission. Ticketing June 20, 2018. U.S. House of Representatives. Anne Bucher. June 13, 2018. Top Class Actions. “Susan Wang and Rene' Lee v. StubHub, Inc. Case” [No. CGC-18-564120]. The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Cars June 23, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Laws Bills Audio Sources July 26, 2023 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Witnesses: Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Director of Housing Advocacy, Atlanta Legal Aid Society Manager Director, Patomak Global Partners Clips Michelle Henry: In the consumer finance space, we recently filed a multi-state lawsuit against Mariner Finance, a Wall Street private equity-owned installment lender. Our lawsuit alleges that Mariner charged consumers junk fees for hidden add-on products that consumers either did not know about or did not agree to buy. These hidden add-on products, such as credit insurance and auto clubs, are typically low- or no-value products. Consumers left Mariner believing that they had entered into an agreement to borrow and repay over time a certain amount of money. In reality, because of these hidden junk fees, Mariner added hundreds to thousands of dollars to the total amount a consumer owed. The cost of the junk fees is staggering. For a random sample of loans originated in Pennsylvania in December of 2020, Mariner charged each consumer an average of $1,085 in junk fees for an average of $3,394 in cash borrowed. Michelle Henry: We also had a significant junk fee settlement in 2018 with Wells Fargo. This settlement stemmed from Wells charging its auto finance customers millions in junk fees. Despite evidence that many customers already had the required car insurance, Wells improperly charged more than 2 million accounts for force-placed insurance. To resolve the multi-state action, Wells agreed to pay states $575 million. Michelle Henry: In 2021, we announced the landmark junk fee settlement with Marriott International. For many years, travelers had been misled by the published rates offered by hotels for a night stay, only later to be hit with the mandatory resort fees when they were checking in. Thanks to our settlement, Marriott now has a policy in place to be upfront and transparent in the disclosure of mandatory fees, including resort fees, as part of the total price of a hotel stay, allowing consumers to compare total costs for hotels and find the one that is the best fit for them. Marriott was the first hotel chain to formally commit to the upfront disclosure of resort fees as part of the initial advertised price. We hope others will follow. Michelle Henry: In the end, what we are fighting here for is basic fairness and transparency. When consumers are shopping online or in person, they deserve to understand what a loan, a house, or a vacation will cost and exactly what key terms they're agreeing to. At the same time, all businesses deserve to compete on an even playing field, where the price is the price with no hidden surprise fees. Lindsey Siegel: My name is Lindsay Siegel and I'm the Director of Housing Advocacy at Atlanta Legal Aid, which provides free civil legal services to families with low incomes in the metro Atlanta area. Today, I will focus on the rental housing market and how predatory and hidden rental fees gouge families living in poverty and make their rent even more unaffordable than it already is. Miss Dixon is a single mother who found an online listing for an apartment in the fall of 2020. The advertisement said it rented for $1,400 per month. It did not list any other monthly fees she would be required to pay. She applied and paid $525 through the landlord's online portal, which covered her $50 application fee, a $175 moving fee, and a $300 screening fee, all of which were non-refundable. She was not able to see the lease or the apartment she'd be renting, but she knew if she did not pay sight unseen she would lose the apartment. And when her application was approved a few weeks later, the landlord charged her another $200 approval fee. She finally received and signed a copy of her lease just two days before she was slated to move in. It was 50 pages long and contained to eight different addenda. She had expected to pay her rent and for water. She didn't expect to be responsible for a package locker fee, a trash removal fee, a separate valet trash fee, a pest control fee, a technology package fee, an insurance fee, and a credit reporting fee. When the fees added up, $83 had been tacked on to her monthly rent. And to make matters worse, Miss Dixon's landlord did not accept the rent by cash, check, or money order. When she paid through the landlord's online portal she was charged another $72-per-payment convenience fee. The low income renters Atlanta Legal Aid represents have an extreme power imbalance with their landlords. The high demand for rental housing, especially at the more affordable end of the market, makes some landlords believe they can easily get away with unfair and deceptive lease terms and rental practices. The bait and switch Miss Dixon experienced where the landlord advertise the rent as one price only to raise it much higher with junk fees after she had spent hundreds of dollars up front is a far too common practice of many investor landlords in the Atlanta area. Low income renters like Miss Dixon become trapped. She couldn't afford to walk away from a predatory lease two days before she was supposed to move in, even if she realized it would be unaffordable. Of particular concern are the use of high application fees. They often far exceed the cost of running a report, and most renters have to pay them several times before finding a home to rent. We've heard reports that some institutional landlords even collect application fees after they've found a renter for an available home. Brian Johnson: The focus of the President's initiative has been on applying political pressure to companies to induce them to change their fee disclosure practices. In the process, the White House and supporting agencies have dismissed broad categories of fees as junk without ever providing any consistent definition of the term, which has created uncertainty as to which fees can be assessed by institutions without undue reputational or regulatory risk. Brian Johnson: The CFPB has been the most enthusiastic among regulators in heeding the President's call, indiscriminately attacking a growing list of common financial service fees, no matter that they are lawful and fully disclosed. Brian Johnson: The agency has publicly hectored companies about deposit account fees and used the implied threat of investigation to induce such companies to abandon these legal fees. Further, in addressing other fees, the CFPB appears appears to have violated its own regulations and laws governing how agencies proffer rules by disguising interpretive rules as policy statements in bulletins and issuing circulars that function as legislative rules. In another instance, under the guise of interpretation, the CFPB read a word into a statute to achieve its desired policy outcome. In still another, the agency treats the rulemaking process as a foregone conclusion, acting as though a still proposed rule has already taken effect, signaling that the agency has no interest in considering public comments, establishing an adequate evidentiary basis to support its conclusions, or considering potential changes to improve the rule. These examples demonstrate an abuse of power and the agency's disregard for process and the limits placed on it. Moreover, the CFPB's behavior subverts the authority of Congress to oversee the agency and legislate the legality of fees in our financial marketplace. Simply put, it's not playing by the rules. Lindsey Siegel: So I think the federal government does have a role to play. The CFPB could create best practices, investigate junk fees further -- especially those being charged for tenant screening reports -- could bring enforcement actions against debt collectors that engage in collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in their collection of rental debt especially includes collection of junk fees. And certainly, you know, HUD could further study and address the disproportionate impact of these practices on renters and rental applicants of color. Lindsey Siegel: Tenants living in Atlanta have a very hard time finding a rental, finding a home, that's not owned by a corporate landlord at this point. They have bought up many properties in the Atlanta area and they always seem to be working in lockstep so that once one institutional landlord is charging a certain kind of fee then another one tends to charge it as well. Just one example of this is the proliferation of landlords charging for insurance fees, and often tenants will think that these are renters insurance because they're often called renter's insurance. But it's not like traditional renter's insurance that protects the renter and their property if it's destroyed. What it does is protect the landlord and doesn't really provide a benefit to tenants at all. And we've seen that proliferate with investor landlords in particular. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I can't imagine any reasonable member of Congress not saying, "I want the person to know what their financial obligation is when they sign an instrument, not after they read page 10 in the fine print." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'm less caught up in whether or not a trash collection fee is appropriate or not, and more caught up in, does that renter know at the point in time they're signing a lease what they're expected to pay every month? Michelle Henry: We often see things bleed over state lines and boundaries, as you are well aware, and so it's important that we work together to enforce these matters. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): How often do these kinds of cases cross state lines? And would having federal standards against these types of hidden fees make these cases easier to bring? Michelle Henry: Almost always. And I think that's critical. Where we have been most successful is joining with our fellow states, other attorneys general, partnering with them, and including the CFPB. In December of 2020, the CFPB, with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, filed enforcement action against Nationstar mortgage, again for deceptive practices, for not being transparent when they were servicing borrowers mortgages, and as a result of that joint effort we were able to obtain a settlement of $73 million and brought aid to 40,000 borrowers. Michelle Henry: You know, the reality is a lot of times consumers get misled. So they start, they're looking on the internet, they're trying to do due diligence and look for the best price, whether it's for a hotel, a vacation, and they're in there examining it, and they get led to a certain area of a certain website thinking that's the best price. And they go down this rabbit hole where they have no idea at the end of it that the price they thought they were going to pay for a hotel stay with their family is actually far larger because of fees that they weren't prepared, were not properly advised of, and at that point, they're so far in or they never discover it. So no, I don't think they understand exactly what to be aware of. We're trying to do our best to educate but far more work needs to be done, and I applaud this committee for working on it. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): If more federal agencies had the authority to address these hidden fees, how would that affect your office's capacity? Michelle Henry: It would help tremendously. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): Thank you so very much. Michelle Henry: If history is any lesson, we know that they can't be trusted to act in the best interest of consumers on their own. Look, they're in the business of making money for their shareholders and we need robust consumer protection rules and enforcement to ensure that. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): So what we're talking about here is not the "what," it's the "how." And I for one do not think that the regulator's who have demonstrated pushing the boundaries of their authority, giving them more authority is a good idea if we're coming up with a real bipartisan sustainable solution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): The problem we have here too, when we transfer power out of Congress to another branch, yes, that changes every four years or so. So you may be thrilled with a regulatory regimen that comes out from the CFBP today, but because of the way they behaved, it'd be one of the first things I would work to repeal if the administration changed and withdraw it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'd like to submit for the record a letter from the Consumer Bankers Association on the subject. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): Mr. Johnson, can you talk about the effect of the method that the CFPB is using to go after this and the impact that it can have, the negative implications that has? Is the CFPB's tendency to name and shame business institutions to avoid certain practices or adopt new ones effective regulation? They're not really thinking through the full impact and all the potential unintended consequences. Can you think of any example under this current leadership of the CFPB where they have taken that into consideration? Can you speak a little bit about the efforts and the length the CFPB goes in an effort to avoid judicial review and skirt the APA process? June 8, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security Witnesses: Chief Executive Officer, National Consumers League Bruce Greenwald Professor of Business, Marketing Division, Columbia Business School George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University Clips 21:35 Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): Simply put, these are fees that are disclosed to a consumer midway through or at the end of a transaction, or they're fees that serve no tangible purpose for a consumer, like a processing fee, and that they are mandatory or unavoidable. 28:00 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): The way I look at this issue, and the way many Tennesseans look at it, is this is another way for the FTC, the CFPB, DoT, and all these regulators to clamp down on businesses and try to micro manage businesses. 30:42 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: as a strategy where firms decide to divide a product's price into two or more mandatory parts, a base price for the main product and one or more mandatory surcharges, rather than charging a single all-inclusive price. For example, many hotels have a mandatory fee on top of the daily room rate. These are sometimes called resort fees, or facility fees, or destination fees and can range from $20 to over $50 a night. And many rental car agencies assess several mandatory fees on top of the daily rental rate, such as concession recovery fees, customer facility fees, energy recovery fees, and vehicle licensing fees. 31:20 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: In general, what research on partition pricing has shown is that when firms separate out mandatory surcharges consumers tend to underestimate the total price they'll have to pay and they're often more likely to complete the purchase. 31:50 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: With drip pricing, firms advertise only part of our products' price upfront and reveal other charges later, as shoppers go through the buying process. Drip fees can be mandatory or can be for optional items, but for today's testimony I'll focus on the dripping of mandatory surcharges. Drip pricing is commonly used in industries like the cable TV and the ticketing industries. When a consumer shops for a TV-Internet bundle from a cable television provider, they may first see an attractive base price offer for the bundle, but later learn there are also broadcast TV fees, set top box fees, regional sports fees, and TV connection fees that raise the price considerably. And a consumer shopping for a ticket for a live event, like a concert, a play, or a baseball game, typically first sees the price for different seats in the venue. After selecting a seat, as the consumer clicks through more webpages, they may come to learn there's also a mandatory booking fee, ticketing fee, venue fee, and delivery fee, even when the tickets are delivered electronically. Eventually, they see a total price that may be much higher than the first price they saw and they may be under time pressure to complete the purchase, as there might be a countdown clock that indicates they have to complete their purchase in just a few minutes. Or they may be told there's only two seats left at that price. 33:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: What research has shown is that when surcharges are dripped, consumers end up being more likely to buy a product that appears cheaper upfront based only on the base price, but that's more expensive and total given the drip fees. Consumers also tend to buy more expensive products than they otherwise would, such as a seat closer to the stage for a live event. 35:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: These policies will benefit consumers if they require that upfront stated prices must be all-inclusive. In other words, all mandatory fees must be included in the total price and that the total price should be seen upfront. This is what academic research suggests will be most beneficial to consumers. 39:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Everybody knows bags fly free on Southwest, everybody knows bags don't fly free on the legacy airlines, everybody knows there's going to be a fee for for bags on the other airlines and the like. Maybe there's ways you can disclose it, but nobody's fooled at this point. 42:45 Sally Greenberg: If consumers hate junk fees so much, why do companies large and small increasingly impose them? The answer is, unsurprisingly, because they are a substantial profit center. 43:20 Sally Greenberg: Late payment fees charged by banks and credit cards cost American families an estimated $12 billion annually. These fees, which can be as much as $41 for each Late Fee Payment, far exceed the cost to the issuer for processing and do little to deter future delinquent payments. 43:40 Sally Greenberg: Airlines are also poster children for junk fees. Globally, revenue from junk fees, ancillary fees in airline speak, brought in $102.8 billion in 2022. To put this in perspective, junk fees last year made up 15% of global airline revenues, compared to 6% only 10 years ago. 44:00 Sally Greenberg: Anyone who buys tickets to a concert or sporting event is well acquainted with the myriad fees. They're added at the end of the ticket buying process. We have the example that you showed, Senator Hickenlooper. Primary and secondary market ticketing companies charge service fees, order processing fees, delivery fees and other charges that increased ticket prices on average 27% for the primary market and 31% for the secondary market. 45:05 Sally Greenberg: Junk fees themselves are anti-competitive. They make comparing prices more difficult, distorting well functioning marketplaces. Honest entrepreneurs who invest in their businesses, innovate, and strive to create better value for their customers lose business. Action to address the consumer and competitive harm created by junk fees is urgently needed. 45:30 Sally Greenberg: First, we would urge you to support S. 916. It's the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which would require some of the worst abusers of junk fees to display the full price of services upfront, and they would bar excessive fees and ensure transparency. Second, we ask that Congress restore the FTC's ability to obtain strong financial penalties from wrongdoers. The Supreme Court, in 2021, overturned AMG Capital Management v. FTC, wiping out a critical enforcement tool for the commission. S. 4145, which is the Consumer Protection Remedies Act, would restore that ability to impose monetary relief to the commission. And finally, Congress must not allow businesses that trap consumers with unfair and deceptive fees to escape accountability through fine print in their contracts. To that end, we're proud to support S. 1376, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, which would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements from being enforceable if they require arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes 44:35 Sally Greenberg: Renters, for example, tend to have lower incomes than those who own their homes. These consumers are also some of the most preyed upon by abusive junk fees. A 2022 survey conducted by Consumer and Housing Advocates found that 89% of landlords imposed some rental application fees[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:09 PM couldn’t find this specific survey]], nearly as many renters paid excessive late fees and they also get hit with utility, administrative, convenience, insurance, and notice fees. 51:30 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): I'm not hearing from Tennesseans about junk fees. They're just not talking about. They are talking about real economic harm. And I think for some it's been kind of perplexing that we would focus on this issue. I even had one Tennessean say, "Well, what exactly is a junk fee? And what are the economic harms that come to people for fees for discretionary services?" 53:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: I can't see any reason why people who pay their credit cards on time should have to subsidize people who pay their credit cards late. The evidence is clear on this from the that if you reduce late fees, more people pay late. The makes clear that if you reduce late fees, everybody ends up paying higher interest rates and, and lower income and higher risk borrowers get less access to credit. So most of what we see in the market is efficient. It prevents cross consumer subsidies and a lot of these things that are labeled as junk fees are actually just efficient multi-part pricing. 1:00:30 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: When a larger firm, or really any firm, uses hidden fees or surcharges, it doesn't only hurt consumers, but it hurts well intentioned, honest competitors like many of our country's small businesses that you're talking about. So when a larger firm makes salient a lower base price and only puts in small print or only reveals at the end of the shopping process that there are additional mandatory fees, their product offerings may appear, at least at first, to be cheaper than those of say a small business, an honest competitor who uses all inclusive prices, whose prices at least at first then, will appear more expensive, even if they're actually cheaper in total when the hidden fees of the large firm are added in. Now, research shows this is going to lead consumers to be more likely to even first consider the products and services of the larger firm who uses hidden surcharges because their products seem cheaper. In other words, their supposed low prices draw consumers in. But then having first consider their products consumers will also be more likely to stick with that firm and ultimately purchase their products, even when they're more expensive in total with the fees. So these hidden fees, they don't only hurt consumers by leading them to make purchases that are against their own self interest, but it also hurts honest competitors who are using transparent pricing practices. 1:04:10 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): One area of this high excessive fees is ticketing. We had the hearing earlier this year with the president of Live Nation/ Ticketmaster, and other witnesses and as you are aware, the facts are quite startling. It's being reviewed by the Justice Department, including 90% monopoly on ticketing for major NFL, NHL events, 80% for major arena events, and 70% monopoly when it comes to all ticketing. In addition to that, Ticketmaster now owns a number of venues and also locks in a number of other venues that they don't own with their services for in excess of seven years, which is a subject of a bill that Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced, because this locking in makes for even less competition. And then finally, Live Nation promotes the act. So it's like a three cornered monopoly. 1:12:30 Sally Greenberg: Yes, you may know that you have a baggage fee, but there are many people who are older, who have disabilities, who may have children with them; they cannot be carrying their bags onto the airplane. So they are forced to eat the cost of a $35 fee, something that used to be free before, and has jammed our airplanes full of luggage up top, creating hazards for flight attendants as well. 1:13:55 Sally Greenberg: We certainly support the Good Jobs for Airports Act. I think many consumers had no idea that a lot of these workers were not making minimum wage[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:08 PM couldn’t find a source for this.]], were relying on tips. And many people who use the wheelchairs and the curbside baggage services did not know that people were living on tip wages and many people don't tip, as some of us who've been tipped workers know. Tipping is very up and down and certainly not a reliable source of income. So yes, we very much appreciate that legislation and it's long overdue. 1:21:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Junk fees is a meaningless term, but it's worse than meaningless. It's actually pernicious, which is that by sort of using this blanket conclusory label, it obscures the complexity of this, the difference between trip pricing, risk based pricing, multipart pricing, partition pricing, and that sort of thing, and it kind of sweeps into one bucket things that are legitimate, things that are aren't, things that might be partially legitimate. And now it's even got more confusing because if you look at the FTC rule, for example, on auto dealers, they take things like nitrogen filled tires, they charge more money for a claim that's a junk fee. The problem with that is not that it's a separate price for nitrogen filled tires. The problem, if there's a problem, is that nitrogen filled tires are garbage, right? There's nothing there. It doesn't matter whether it's disclosed separately or bundled in the price if it's a worthless product. And so when we talk about junk fees, we can end up confusing ourselves, lumping in things because we want to just apply this label to it, whereas I think it'd be much better to understand risk based pricing. What are things where they're pricing for something that you get no value from? What are the things where they're pricing things simply to extract wealth from consumers and the like? Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD279: The Censure of Adam Schiff

13 augusti 2023 | 75 min

On June 21st, the House of Representatives censured Rep. Adam Schiff of California. The House has censured members just 24 times in our nation’s history, making Schiff the 25th. In this episode, we'll detail the actions outlined in the censure and let you decide for yourself: Is it a serious abuse of power? Is it a waste of time? Is it a deserved punishment? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The History of Censure U.S. House of Representatives Office of History, Art and Archives. July 22, 2023. Wikipedia. The Durham Report John Durham. May 12, 2023. U.S. Department of Justice. FISA Warrants Rebecca Beitsch. July 21, 2023. The Hill. Andrew Prokop. February 24, 2018. Vox. February 5, 2018. U.S. House of Representatives The Whistleblower Julian E. Barnes et al. October 2, 2019. The New York Times. Julian E. Barnes and Nicholas Fandos. September 17, 2019. The New York Times. Kyle Cheney. September 13, 2019. Politico. Republicans Who Blocked the First Censure Jared Gans. June 16, 2023. The Hill. Senate Campaign Fundraising Jamie Dupree. July 17, 2023. Regular Order. Impeachment Mania Don Wolfensberger. July 10, 2023. The Hill. Alex Gangitano and Brett Samuels. July 1, 2023. The Hill. Rebecca Beitsch and Emily Brooks. June 29, 2023. The Hill. The Resolution Audio Sources June 21, 2023 House Floor June 21, 2023 House Floor Clips 1:15 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): With access to sensitive information unavailable to most Members of Congress, and certainly not accessible to the American people, Representative SCHIFF abused his privileges, claiming to know the truth, while leaving Americans in the dark about this web of lies. These were lies so severe that they altered the course of the country forever: the lie that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election revealed to be completely false by numerous investigations, including the Durham report; the lie that the Steele dossier—a folder of falsified and since completely debunked collusion accusations funded by the Democratic Party—had any shred of credibility, yet Representative SCHIFF read it into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as fact; the lies concocted and compiled in a false memo that was used to lie to the FISA court, to precipitate domestic spying on U.S. citizen, Carter Page, violating American civil liberties. 12:20 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, to my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you. You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truthtellers, and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy, and I am grateful. 13:15 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Donald Trump is under indictment for actions that jeopardize our national security, and MCCARTHY would spend the Nation’s time on petty political payback, thinking he can censure or fine Trump’s opposition into submission. But I will not yield, not one inch. The cost of the Speaker’s delinquency is high, but the cost to Congress of this frivolous and yet dangerous resolution may be even higher, as it represents another serious abuse of power. 14:50 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): This resolution attacks me for initiating an investigation into the Trump campaign’s solicitation and acceptance of Russian help in the 2016 election, even though the investigation was first led not by me but by a Republican chairman. 15:10 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): It would hold that when you give internal campaign polling data to a Russian intelligence operative while Russian intelligence is helping your campaign, as Trump’s campaign chairman did, that you must not call that collusion, though that is its proper name, as the country well knows. 15:30 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): It would fine me for the costs of the critically important Mueller investigation into Trump’s misconduct, even though the special counsel was appointed by Trump’s own Attorney General. 16:00 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): It would reprimand me over a flawed FISA application, as if I were its author or I were the Director of the FBI, and over flaws only discovered years later and by the inspector general, not Mr. Durham. In short, it would accuse me of omnipotence, the leader of some vast deep state conspiracy. Of course, it is nonsense. 16:50 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): My colleagues, if there is cause for censure in this House, and there is, it should be directed at those in this body who sought to overturn a free and fair Election. 19:05 Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL): Representative SCHIFF used his position as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to mislead the American people by falsely claiming that there was classified evidence of Russia colluding with President Trump, which was not true. 22:15 Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): SCHIFF repeatedly used the authority he was afforded in his position as chairman to lie to the American people to support his political agenda. Even after the Durham report discredited the Russia hoax, he continued to knowingly lie and peddle this false narrative. 24:45 Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): ADAM SCHIFF has done nothing wrong. ADAM SCHIFF is a good man. ADAM SCHIFF has served this country with distinction. ADAM SCHIFF served this country well as a Federal prosecutor, fighting to keep communities safe. ADAM SCHIFF served this country well as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, investigating people without fear or favor, including those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because he believes in the Constitution and his oath of office. ADAM SCHIFF served his country well as the lead impeachment manager during the first impeachment trial of the former President of the United States, prosecuting his corrupt abuse of power. Yes, ADAM SCHIFF served this country well in the aftermath of the violent insurrection. He pushed back against the big lie told by the puppet master in chief and participated as a prominent member of the January 6th Committee to defend our democracy. ADAM SCHIFF has done nothing wrong. He has worked hard to do right by the American people. The extreme MAGA Republicans have no vision, no agenda, and no plan to make life better for the American people, so we have this phony, fake, and fraudulent censure resolution. A DAM SCHIFF will not be silenced. We will not be silenced. House Democrats will not be silenced today. We will not be silenced tomorrow. We will not be silenced next week. We will not be silenced next month. We will not be silenced next year. We will not be silenced this decade. We will not be silenced this century. You will never ever silence us. We will always do what is right. We will always fight for the Constitution, fight to defend democracy, fight for freedom, expose extremism, and continue America’s long, necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect Union. 29:10 Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC): Not only did he spread falsehoods that abused his power, he went after a man, Carter Page, who was completely innocent. Inspector General Horowitz found 17 major mistakes. 31:20 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): What really gnaws on the majority and what really bothers them is that Mr. SCHIFF was way better than anybody on their team at debate, at leadership, at messaging, and at legal knowledge. He kicked their ass. He was better, he was more effective, and that still bothers them. 35:40 Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA): Mr. Speaker, I opposed the original version of this resolution, not to defend Mr. SCHIFF’s lies, but to defend the process that exposed those lies. We must never punish speech in this House, only acts. The only way to separate truth from falsehoods or wisdom from folly is free and open debate. We must never impose excessive fines that would effectively replace the constitutional two-thirds vote for expulsion with a simple majority. This new version removes the fine and focuses instead on specific acts, most particularly the abuse of his position as Intelligence Committee chairman by implying he had access to classified information that did not exist and his placement into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the Steele dossier that he knew or should have known was false. 42:35 Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT): The most important thing I can say is that I sat next to ADAM SCHIFF for years. He is a man of integrity and dignity. 49:45 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): ADAM SCHIFF is tough. ADAM SCHIFF is smart. ADAM SCHIFF gets the job done. ADAM SCHIFF holds the powerful accountable. 56:35 Rep. André Carson (D-IN): Mr. Speaker, what I do know is that ADAM SCHIFF defended the U.S. Constitution. He led an impartial investigation which followed the facts and led to the first of two impeachments of a former President. 1:00:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Today, we are voting on a joke of a measure to censure ADAM SCHIFF, a true public servant and patriot. I urge a strong ‘‘no’’ against this resolution targeting a true American hero. 1:08:30 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): The only advantage to all of this is that instead of reversing what we did on the IRA to save the planet or reversing what we did to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, we are wasting time. September 26, 2019 CNN Clips 9:05 Wolf Blitzer: As you know, Mr. Chairman, you're being severely criticized by a lot of Republicans for mocking the president during your opening remarks today at the committee. Was it a mistake to make light of the situation? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Well, I don't think it's making light of a situation. And I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that there's anything comical about this. But I do think it's all too accurate, that this President, in his conversations with the President of Ukraine, was speaking like an organized crime boss. And the fact that these words are so suggestive that the President used of what we have seen of organized crime harkens back to me of what, for example, James Comey said when he was asked by the President if he could let this matter involving Flynn go, when Michael Cohen testified about how the President speaks in a certain code where you understand exactly what's required here. The point is that the President was using exactly that kind of language. And the President of Ukraine fully understood what he was talking about. Wolf Blitzer: Do you regret the, what you call the parody, the use of those phrases during the course of your opening statement? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): No, I think everyone understood -- and my GOP colleagues may feign otherwise -- that when I said, suggested that it was as if the President said, "listen carefully, because I'm only going to tell you seven more times" that I was mocking the President's conduct. But make no mistake about this, what the President did is of the utmost gravity and the utmost seriousness, because it involves such a fundamental betrayal of his oath. September 26, 2019 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Witnesses: Joseph Maguire, Acting Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence Clips 6:54 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): President Zelensky, eager to establish himself at home as the friend of the president of the most powerful nation on earth, had at least two objectives: get a meeting with the president and get more military help. And so what happened on that call? Zelensky begins by ingratiating himself, and he tries to enlist the support of the president. He expresses his interest in meeting with the president, and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. 7:30 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what is the President’s response? Well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the President communicates. We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that. I'm gonna put you in touch with people, not just any people, I'm going to put you in touch with Attorney General of the United States, my attorney general, Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm gonna put you in touch with Rudy, you're going to love Him, trust me. You know what I'm asking. And so I'm only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again, I'll call you when you've done what I asked. This is, in some in character, what the President was trying to communicate with the President of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the President says here that is in America's interest, after all. 1:14:40 Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): While the chairman was speaking I actually had someone text me, "Is he just making this up?" And yes, yes he was. Because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the texts. But luckily the American public are smart and they have the transcript, they've read the conversation, they know when someone's just making it up. 1:19:45 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): In my summary, the President's call was meant to be at least part in parody. The fact that that's not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the president never said, "If you don't understand me, I'm gonna say seven more times." My point is, that's the message that the Ukraine president was receiving, in not so many words. September 17, 2019 Morning Joe on MSNBC Clips Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I'm sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised as the law requires by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence, just as to how he is to communicate with Congress. And so the risk of the whistleblower is retaliation. Will the whistleblower be protected under the statute if the offices that are supposed to come to his assistance and provide the mechanism are unwilling to do so? But yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower. March 28, 2019 CNN with Chris Cuomo Clips Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): One, there's ample evidence of collusion in plain sight and that is true. And second, that is not the same thing as whether Bob Muller would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime of conspiracy. There's a difference between there being evidence of collusion and proof beyond reasonable doubt of a crime. March 24, 2019 This Week with George Stephanopoulos Clips George Stephenopolous: You have said though in the past there is significant evidence of collusion. How do you square that with Robert Muller's decision not to indict anyone. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): There is significant evidence of collusion, and we've set that out time and time again, from the secret meetings in Trump Tower to the conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, to the providing of polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence, and Stone's conversation with WikiLeaks and the GRU through -- George Stephenopolous: None of it prosecuted. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Well that's true. And as I pointed out on your show many times, there's a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the Special Counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): We need to be able to see any evidence that this President, or people around him, may be compromised by a foreign power. We've of course seen all kinds of disturbing indications that this President has a relationship with Putin that is very difficult to justify or explain. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): It's our responsibility to tell the American people, "These are the facts. This is what your president has done. This is what his key campaign and appointees have done. These are the issues that we need to take action on." This is potential compromise. There is evidence, for example, quite in the public realm that the President sought to make money from the Russians, sought the Kremlin's help to make money during the presidential campaign, while denying business ties with the Russians. February 17, 2019 CNN with Dana Bash Clips Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Look, you can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. Now, there's a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. August 5, 2018 Face the Nation Clips Margaret Brennan: Can you agree that there has been no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the Trump campaign and Russia? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): No, I don't agree with that at all. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. December 10, 2017 CNN Clips Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): But we do know this: the Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help and the President made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not. November 1, 2017 MSNBC Clips Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What is clear as this: the Kremlin repeatedly told the campaign it had dirt on Clinton and offered to help it and at least one top Trump official, the President's own son, accepted. Rachel Maddow: The Kremlin offered dirt to the Trump campaign. The President's campaign said yes to that offer. That's no longer an open question. All that stuff has now been proven and admitted to. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee today, using his time today, using his opening statement today to walk through -- ding ding ding, point by point -- what we've already learned in black and white, in written correspondence and public statements and in freaking court filings, about all the times the Trump campaign was offered helped by Russia to influence our election and all the times the Trump campaign said "Yes, please." March 23, 2017 The View Clips Jedediah Bila: Congressman, you made yesterday what some are deeming a provocative statement by saying that there is more than circumstantial evidence now that the Trump camp colluded with Russia. Senator John McCain was critical of that, others have been critical of that. Can you defend that statement? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Yes. And I, you know, I don't view it as the same bombshell that apparently they did. Look, I've said that I thought there was circumstantial evidence of collusion or coordination, and that there was direct evidence of deception. And no one had an issue with that. And I don't think anyone really contested that, on the basis of the information we keep getting, I can say, in my opinion, it's now not purely circumstantial. We had the FBI Director testify in open session about this, acknowledge an FBI investigation. Obviously, this is now public. And I think it's fair to say that that FBI investigation is justified, that that wouldn't be done on the basis of not credible allegations. And so I think it's appropriate to talk in general terms about the evidence, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to go into specifics and say, "This is what we know from this piece of classified information," or "this what we know from this witness." But I do think, in this investigation where the public is hungry for information, it is important that we try to keep the public in the loop. That's why we're having public hearings. March 22, 2017 MSNBC Clips Chuck Todd: You have seen direct evidence of collusion? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial. March 19, 2017 Meet the Press Clips Chuck Todd: Collusion is sort of what hasn't been proven here between whatever the Russians did and the Trump campaign. In fact, the former Acting Director of the CIA, who was Mike Morell, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he essentially reminded people and took Director Clapper at his word on this show who said, there has been no evidence that has been found of collusion. Are we at the point of -- at what point do you start to wonder if there is a fire to all this smoke? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Well, first of all, I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that because I don't think you can make that claim categorically as he did. I would characterize it this way at the outset of the investigation: there is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence, I think, of deception. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD278: All Three UAP Hearings

30 juli 2023 | 92 min

Since May 2022, Congress has held three hearings looking into Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and the possibility of non-human intelligent life flying aircraft on Earth. In this episode, hear testimony from three Defense Department officials and three credible whistleblowers, whose testimony is often as contradictory as it is shocking. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Whistleblower Protections Clayton E. Wire. 2020. Ogborn Mihm LLP. Security Classifications Security Classification of Information, Volume 2. Principles for Classification of Information. Arvin S. Quist. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 1993. UAP Background Brian Entin. June 6, 2023. NewsNation. Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal. June 5, 2023. The Debrief. May 16, 2021. 60 Minutes. Ralph Blumenthal. December 18, 2017. The New York Times. Helene Cooper et al. December 16, 2017. The New York Times. Independent Research and Development National Defense Industrial Association. SCIFs Derek Hawkins et al. April 26, 2023. The Washington Post. Kirkpatrick Response Letter D. Dean Johnson (@ddeanjohnson). Twitter. Audio Sources July 26, 2023 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Witnesses: , Former Commanding Officer, United States Navy Ryan Graves, Executive Director, Americans for Safe Aerospace David Grusch, Former National Reconnaissance Office Representative, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, Department of Defense Clips timestamps reflect C-SPAN video 4:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office or AARO to conduct or to coordinate efforts across the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to detect, identify and investigate UAPs. However, AARO's budget remains classified, prohibiting meaningful oversight from Congress. 19:50 Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): We know the Senate is taking up an amendment to their defense authorization bill which will create a commission with broad declassification authority and we should all agree that that is an important step. 27:40 Ryan Graves: Excessive classification practices keep crucial information hidden. Since 2021, all UAP videos are classified as secret or above. This level of secrecy not only impedes our understanding, but fuels speculation and mistrust. 27:55 Ryan Graves: In 2014, I was an F-18 Foxtrot pilot in the Navy fighter attack Squadron 11, the Red Rippers, and I was stationed at NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach. After upgrades were made to our jet's radar systems, we began detecting unknown objects operating in our airspace. At first, we assumed they were radar errors. But soon we began to correlate the radar tracks with multiple onboard sensors, including infrared systems, and eventually through visual ID. During a training mission in Warning Area W-72, 10 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. Two F/A-18F Super Hornets were split by a UAP. The object, described as a dark gray or a black cube inside of a clear sphere, came within 50 feet of the lead aircraft and was estimated to be five to 15 feet in diameter. The mission commander terminated the flight immediately and returned to base. Our squadron submitted a safety report, but there was no official acknowledgement of the incident and no further mechanism to report the sightings. Soon these encounters became so frequent that aircrew would discuss the risk of UAP as part of their regular pre-flight briefs. 29:00 Ryan Graves: Recognising the need for action and answers, I founded Americans for Safe Aerospace. The organization has since become a haven for UAP witnesses who were previously unspoken due to the absence of a safe intake process. More than 30 witnesses have come forward and almost 5000 Americans have joined us in the fight for transparency at safeaerospace.org 29:20 Ryan Graves: The majority of witnesses are commercial pilots at major airlines. Often, they are veterans with decades of flying experience. Pilots are reporting UAP at altitudes that appear above them at 40,000 feet potentially in low Earth orbit or in the gray zone below the Karman Line, making unexplainable maneuvers like right hand turns and retrograde orbits or J hooks. Sometimes these reports are reoccurring with numerous recent sightings north of y and in the North Atlantic. Other veterans are also coming forward to us regarding UAP encounters in our airspace and oceans. The most compelling involve observations of UAP by multiple witnesses and sensor systems. I believe these accounts are only scratching the surface and more will share their experiences once it is safe to do so. 31:30 David Grusch: I became a whistleblower through a PPD 19 urgent concern filing in May 2022 with the intelligence community Inspector General following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and intelligence community individuals that the US government is operating with secrecy above congressional oversight with regards to UAPs. My testimony is based on information I've been given by individuals with a long standing track record of legitimacy and service to this country, many of whom also have shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony to myself and my various colleagues. I have taken every step I can to corroborate this evidence over a period of four years while I was with the UAP Task Force and do my due diligence on the individual sharing it. Because of these steps. I believe strongly in the importance of bringing this information before you. 33:30 David Grusch: In 2019, the UAP Task Force director asked me to identify all Special Access Programs and Controlled Access Programs, also known as SAPS and CAPS. We needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission and we were direct report at the time to the [Deputy Secretary of Defense]. At the time, due to my extensive executive level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust both in my military and civilian capacities. I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-ons when I requested it. I made the decision based on the data I collected to report this information to my superiors and multiple Inspectors General and, in effect, becoming a whistleblower. 35:20 Cmdr. David Fravor: We were attached to carrier 11, stationed onboard USS Nimitz and began a two month workup cycle off the coast of California. On this day, we were scheduled for a two v two air-to-air training with the USS Princeton as our control. When we launched off Nimitz, my wingman was joining out, we were told that the training was going to be suspended and we're going to proceed with real world tasking. As we proceeded to the West, the air controller was counting down the range to an object that we were going to and we were unaware of what we're going to see when we arrived. There, the controller told us that these objects had been observed for over two weeks coming down from over 80,000 feet, rapidly descending to 20,000 feet, hanging out for hours and then going straight back up. For those who don't realize, above 80,000 feet is space. We arrived at the location at approximately 20,000 feet and the controller called the merge plot, which means that our radar blip was now in the same resolution cell as a contact. As we looked around, we noticed that we saw some whitewater off our right side. It's important to note the weather on this day was as close to perfect as you could ask for off the coast of San Diego: clear skies, light winds, calm seas, no white caps from waves. So the whitewater stood out in a large blue ocean. All four of us, because we were in an F/A-18F F, so we had pilots and WSO in the backseat, looked down and saw a white tic tac object with a longitudinal axis pointing north-south and moving very abruptly over the water, like a ping pong ball. There were no rotors, no rotor wash, or any sign of visible control surfaces like wings. As we started clockwise towards the object, my WSO I decided to go down and take a closer look with the other aircraft staying in high cover to observe both us and the tic tac. We proceeded around the circle about 90 degrees from the start of our descent, and the object suddenly shifted its longitudinal axis, aligned it with my aircraft and began to climb. We continued down another 270 degrees, and we went nose low to where the tic tac would have been. Our altitude at this point is about 15,000 feet and the tic tac was about 12,000. As we pulled nose-on to the object within about a half mile of it, it rapidly accelerated in front of us and disappeared. Our wingmen, roughly 8000 feet above us, lost contact also. We immediately turned back to see where the whitewater was at and it was gone also. So as you started to turn back towards the east the controller came up and said "Sir you're not going to believe this but that thing is that your cat point roughly 60 miles away in less than a minute." You can calculate the speed. We returned to Nimitz. We were taking off our gear, we were talking to one of my crews that was getting ready to launch, we mentioned it to them and they went out and luckily got the video that you see, that 90 second video. What you don't see is the radar tape that was never released, and we don't know where it's at. 37:55 Cmdr. David Fravor: What is shocking to us is that the incident was never investigated. None of my crew ever questioned and tapes were never taken and after a couple days it turned into a great story with friends. It wasn't until 2009 until J. Stratton had contacted me to investigate. Unbeknownst to all, he was part of the AATIP program at the Pentagon led by Lue Elizondo. There was an unofficial official report that came out it's now in the internet. Years later, I was contacted by the other pilot Alex Dietrich and asked if I'd been contacted and I said "No, but I'm willing to talk." I was contacted by Mr. Elizondo, and we talked for a short period of time, he said we'd be in contact. A few weeks after that I was made aware that Lue had left the Pentagon in protest and joined forces with Tom DeLonge and Chris Mellon, Steve Justice, and others to form To the Stars Academy, an organization that pressed the issue with leading industry experts and US government officials. They worked with Leslie Kean, who is present today, Ralph Blumenthal, and Helene Cooper to publish the articles in the New York Times in 2017. It removed the stigma on the topic of UFOs, which is why we're here today. Those articles opened the door for the government and public that cannot be closed. It has led to an interest from our elected officials, who are not focused on Little Green Men, but figuring out where these craft are, where they are from, the technology they possess, how do they operate. It also led to the Whistleblower Protection Act in the NDAA. 39:45 Cmdr. David Fravor: In closing, I would like to say that the tic tac object we engaged in 2004 was far superior to anything that we had on time, have today, or are looking to develop in the next 10 years. If we, in fact, have programs that possess this technology and needs to have oversight from those people, that the citizens of this great country elected in office to represent what is best for the United States and best for the citizens. I thank you for your time. 40:20 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Are your pilots, or pilots that you interact with as part of your organization, do you feel adequately trained and briefed on how to handle encounters with UAPs? Ryan Graves: No. Right now, military witnesses to UAP have limited options for reporting UAP. But more more concerning is that the commercial aviation sector has not adapted to the lessons that the military has implemented. The military and Department of Defense have stated that UAP represent a critical aviation safety risk. We have not seen that same language being used in the commercial markets, they are not acknowledging this. 41:05 Ryan Graves: Right now we need a system where pilots can report without fear of losing their jobs. There's a fear that the stigma associated with this topic is going to lead to professional repercussions either through management or perhaps through their yearly physical check. So having a secure system, reducing the stigma, and making this information available through the public is going to reduce the concerns that aircrew have. 41:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Can you just give me a little idea the degree to which reports in the past are not made public right now? Ryan Graves: Well, I don't think there has been a proper reporting system to gather those reports and thus not report them. So to answer your question, I think there is a dearth of data due to the fact that the reporting has been limited up to this time. 41:45 Ryan Graves: There's certainly some national security concerns when we use our advanced sensors and our tactical jets to be able to identify these objects. However, there's no reason that the objects themselves would be classified. I would be curious to see how the security classification guideline actually spells out the different nuances of how this topic is classified from the perspective of UAP, not national security. 43:00 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Mr. Fravor, the tic tac incident that you were engaged [in] occurred in 2004. What kind of reporting took place after that incident? Ryan Graves: None. We had a standard debrief where the back-seaters went down to our carrier intel center and briefed what had happened, and that was it. No one else talked to us. And I was in the top 20 in the battle group, no one came that the Captain was aware, the of Admiral was aware, nothing was done. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Did your commanding officers provide any sort of justification? Ryan Graves: No, because I was the commanding officer of the quadron. So no. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Was this incident the only UAP event that you encountered while you were a pilot? Ryan Graves: Yes, it was. 43:50 Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Do you believe UAPs pose a potential threat to our national security? Ryan Graves: Yes, and here's why: the technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had, and you could put that anywhere. If you had one, you captured one, you reverse engineered it, you got it to work, you're talking something that can go into space, go someplace, dropped down in a matter of seconds, do whatever it wants and leave. And there's nothing we can do about it. Nothing. 44:20 Ryan Graves: I would also like to add from a commercial aviation and military aviation perspective, we deal with uncertainty in our operating space as a matter of our professional actions. Identifying friend from foe is very important to us. And so when we have identified targets and we continue to ignore those due to a stigma or fear of what it could be, that's an opening that our adversaries can take advantage of. 44:55 Ryan Graves: There needs to be a location where this information is centralized for processing and there needs to be a two-way communication loop so the operators on the front end have feedback and can get best practices on how to process information, what to do, and to ensure that their reporting is being listened to. Right now there is not a lot of back and forth. 46:25 Ryan Graves: When we were first experiencing these objects off the eastern seaboard in the 2014 to 2015 time period, anyone that had upgraded their radar systems were seeing these objects. So there was a large number of my colleagues that were detecting these objects off the eastern seaboard. They were further correlating that information with the other onboard sensors. And many of them also had their own eyesightings, as well, of these objects. Now, that was our personal, firsthand experience at the time. Since then, as I've engaged this topic, others have reached out to me to share their experiences both on the military side as well as the commercial aviation side. On the military aviation side, veterans that have recently got out have shared their stories and have expressed how the objects we are seeing in 2014 and 2015 continued all the way to 2019, 2020, and beyond. And so it became a generational issue for naval aviators on the Eastern Seaboard. This was something we were briefing to new students. This is something that was included in the notice to airmen to ensure that there was no accidents. And now with commercial aviators, they are reaching out because they're having somewhat similar experiences as our military brothers and sisters, but they do not have any reporting system that they can send this to. 47:55 Cmdr. David Fravor: It's actually, it's a travesty that we don't have a system to correlate this and actually investigate. You know, so if you took the east coast, there's coastal radars out there that monitor our air defense identification zone. Out to 200 miles, they can track these. So when you see them, they could actually go and pull that data and get maneuvering. And instead of just having the airplanes, there's other data sources out there. And I've talked to other government officials on this. You need a centrally located repository that these reports go to. So if you just stuck it in DOD, you wouldn't get anything out of the Intelligence Committee because they have a tendency not to talk. But if you had a central location where these reports are coming in, not just military, but also commercial aviation, because there's a lot of that going on, especially if you talk to anyone that flies from here to Hawaii, over the Pacific they see odd lights. So I think you need to develop something that allows you a central point to collect the data in order to investigate. 51:20 Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): Mr. Grusch, finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs? David Grusch: Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA): And where? David Grusch: I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General, and some of which to the intelligence committees, I actually had the people with the firsthand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General 52:15 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Mr. Graves. Again, I'd like to know, how do you know that these were not our aircraft? Ryan Graves: Some of the behaviors that we saw in a working area. We would see these objects being at 0.0 Mach, that's zero airspeed over certain pieces of the ground. So what that means, just like a river, if you throw a bobber in, it's gonna float downstream. These objects were staying completely stationary in category four hurricane winds. The same objects would then accelerate to supersonic speeds 1.1-1.2 Mach, and they would do so in very erratic and quick behaviors that we don't -- I don't -- have an explanation for. 55:50 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Mr. Fravor, do you believe that you witnessed an additional object under the water in relation to your encounter? Cmdr. David Fravor: I will say we did not see an object. There was something there to cause the whitewater and when we turned around, it was gone. So there was something there that obviously moved. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, it was not the same object, though, that you were looking at, correct? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, we actually joked that the tic tac was communicating with something when we came back, because the whitewater disappeared. 56:15 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): We were, in another instance, told about the capabilities of jamming when there were some people chasing some of these objects. Did you experience any of that jamming, or interrupting your radar or weapon system? Cmdr. David Fravor: My crew that launched, after we landed, experienced significant jamming to the APG 73 radar, which was what we had on board, which is a mechanically scan, very high end system, prior to APG 79. And yes, it did pretty much everything you could do range, velocity, aspect, and then it hit the lock and the targeting pod is passive. That's when we're able to get the video on. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): I'm about to run out of time, but are you aware of any of our enemies that have that capability? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, no. 57:40 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): You've identified these as taking place on the East Coast. Is it just on the East Coast where these encounters have been reported? Ryan Graves: No. Since the events initially occurred, I've learned that the objects have been detected, essentially where all Navy operations are being conducted across the world. And that's from the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office reporting. 58:50 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): Are there common characteristics to the UAPs that have been sighted by different pilots? And can you describe what the convergence of descriptions is? Ryan Graves: Certainly. We were primarily seeing dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): I'm sorry, dark gray or black cubes? Ryan Graves: Yes, inside of a clear sphere where the apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere. And that was primarily what was being reported when we were able to gain a visual tally of these objects. That occurred over almost eight years, and as far as I know, is still occurring. 59:45 Ryan Graves: I think we need both transparency and the reporting. We have the reporting, but we need to make sure that information can be propagated to commercial aviation as well as the rest of the populace. 1:05:00 Ryan Graves: In the 2003 timeframe, a large group of Boeing contractors were operating near one of the launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base when they observed a very large, 100-yard-sided red square approach the base from the ocean and hover at low altitude over one of the launch facilities. This object remained for about 45 seconds or so before darting off over the mountains. There was a similar event within 24 hours later in the evening. This was a morning event, I believe, 8:45 in the morning. Later in the evening, post sunset, there were reports of other sightings on base including some aggressive behaviors. These objects were approaching some of the security guards at rapid speeds before darting off, and this is information that was received through one of the witnesses that have approached me at Americans for Safe Aerospace. 1:06:15 Ryan Graves: I have not seen what they've described. This object was estimated to be almost the size of a football field, and I have not seen anything personally that large. 1:07:05 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): With the FAA, to your understanding, pilots that are seeing this, commercial airline pilots, are they receiving cease and desist letters from corporations for coming forward with information in regards to safety for potential air airline passengers? Ryan Graves: I have been made privy to conversations with commercial aviators who have received cease and desist orders. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): So the American public should know that corporations are putting their own reputations ahead of the safety of the American people. Would you agree with that statement? Ryan Graves: It appears so. 1:08:15 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): So what about G forces? Let's talk about G forces in those vehicles. Could a human survive those G forces with known technology today? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, not for the acceleration rates that we observed. 1:08:45 Cmdr. David Fravor: So we got within a half mile of the tic tac, which people say that's pretty far, but in airplanes that's actually relatively close. Now it was perfectly white, smooth, no windows, although when we did take the original FLIR video that is out there, when you put it on a big screen it actually had two little objects that came out of the bottom of it. But other than that, no windows, no seams, no nothing. 1:09:05 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Mr. Grusch, as a result of your previous government work have you met with people with direct knowledge or have direct knowledge yourself of non-human origin craft? David Grusch: Yes, I personally interviewed those individuals. 1:09:40 Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Do you have knowledge or do you have reason to believe that there are programs in the advanced tech space that are unsanctioned? David Grusch: Yes, I do. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Okay. And when you say that they're above congressional oversight, what do you mean? David Grusch: Complicated question. So there's some, I would call it abuse here. So congressional oversight of conventional Special Special Access Programs, and I'll use Title X, so DOD, as an example. So 10 US Code section 119 discusses congressional oversight of SAPS, discusses the Deputy Secretary of Defense's ability to waive congressional reporting. However, the Gang of Eight is at least supposed to be notified if a waived or waived bigoted unacknowledged SAP is created. That's Public Law. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): I don't want to cut you off, but how does a program like that get funded? David Grusch: I will give you generalities. I can get very specific in a closed session, but misappropriation of funds. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Does that mean that there is money in the budget that is set to go to a program but it doesn't and it goes to something else? David Grusch: Yes, have specific knowledge of that. Yep. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL): Do you think US corporations are overcharging for certain tech they're selling to the US government and that additional money is going to programs? David Grusch: Correct, through something called IRAD. 1:12:45 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA): Mr. Grusch, in your sworn testimony you state that the United States government has retrieved supposedly extraterrestrial spacecraft and other UAP related artifacts. You go so far as to state that the US is in possession of "non human spacecraft" and that some of these artifacts have circulated with defense contractors. Several other former military and intelligence officials have come forward with similar allegations albeit in non-public setting. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the Director of AARO, previously testified before Congress that there has been and I quote, "no credible evidence" thus far of extraterrestrial act activity or "off world technology" brought to the attention of the office. To your knowledge, is that statement correct? David Grusch: It's not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to AARO thus far. A few of those individuals have also come to AARO that I also interviewed and I know what they provided Dr. Kirkpatrick and their team. I was able to evaluate -- Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA): Okay, I need to go on. David Grusch: Sure. 1:21:25 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Has the US government become aware of actual evidence of extraterrestrial or otherwise unexplained forms of intelligence? And if so, when do you think this first occurred? David Grusch: I like to use the term non-human, I don't like to denote origin, it keeps the aperture open scientifically. Certainly, like I've just discussed publicly, previously, the 1930s. 1:21:45 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct, first-hand knowledge and access to some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities, military bases that the recovered material would be in? And I know a lot of Congress talked about, we're gonna go to area 51. And, you know, there's nothing there anymore anyway, it's just you know, we move like a glacier. And as soon as we announce it, I'm sure the moving vans would pull up, but please. David Grusch: I can't discuss that publicly. But I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): And we could get that in the SCIF, if we were allowed to get in a SCIF with you? Would that be probably what you would think? David Grusch: Sure, if you had the appropriate accesses, yeah. 1:22:30 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): What Special Access Programs cover this information? And how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long? David Grusch: I do know the names, once again, I can't discuss that publicly. And how they've evaded oversight in a closed setting I could tell you this specific tradecraft used. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Alright. 1:22:50 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): When did you think those programs began and who authorized them? David Grusch: I do know a lot of that information, but that's something I can't discuss publicly because of sensitivities Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Alright. 1:24:05 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Title 10 and title 50 authorization, they seem to say they're inefficient. So who gets to decide this, in your opinion, in the past? David Grusch: It's a group of career senior executive officials. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay. Are they government officials? David Grusch: Both in and out of government and that's about as far I'll go there. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Well, that leads to my next question, which private corporations are directly involved in this program? How much taxpayer money has been invested in these programs? David Grusch: Yeah, I don't know the specific metrics towards the end of your question. The specific corporations I did provide to the committees in specific divisions, and I spent 11 and a half hours with both Intel committees. 1:25:30 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Has there been an active US government disinformation campaign to deny the existence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? And if so, why? David Grusch: I can't go beyond what I've already exposed publicly about that. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay, I've been told to ask you what that is and how to get it in the record. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): What have you stated publicly in your interviews, for the Congressional Record? David Grusch: If you reference my NewsNation interview, I talk about a multi-decade campaign to disenfranchise public interest basically. 1:28:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): When it comes to notification that you had mentioned about IRAD programs, we have seen defense contractors abuse their contracts before through this committee. I have seen it personally, and I have also seen the notification requirements to Congress abused. I am wondering, one of the loopholes that we see in the law is that there is, at least from my vantage point, depending on what we're seeing, is that there are no actual definitions or requirements for notification, are there? What methods of notification did you observe? When they say they notified Congress, how did they do that? Do you have insight into that? David Grusch: For certain IRAD activities....I can only think of ones conventional in nature. Sometimes they flow through certain out of say SAP programs that have cognisant authority over the Air Force or something. And those are congressionally reported compartments, but IRAD is literally internal to the contractor. So as long as it's money, either profits, private investment, etc, they can do whatever they want. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): To put a finer point on it, when there is a requirement for any agency or company to notify Congress, do they contact the chairman of a committee, do they get them on the phone specifically, is this through an email to hypothetically a dead email box? David Grusch: A lot of it comes through what they call the PPR, Periodic Program Review process. If it's a SAP or Controlled Access Program equity, and then those go to the specific committees. 1:30:40 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): For the record, if you were me, where would you look? Titles, programs, departments, regions? If you could just name anything. And I put that as an open question to the three of you. David Grusch: I'd be happy to give you that in a closed environment. I can tell you specifically. 1:35:40 Cmdr. David Fravor: Things are over-classified. I know for a fact the video or the pictures that came out in the 2020 report that had the stuff off the east coast, they were taken with an iPhone, off the east coast. A buddy of mine was one of the senior people there and he said they originally classified a TSS CI, and my question to him was what's TSS CI about these? They're an iPhone, right, literally off the vacates, that's not TSS CI. So they're over classified, and as soon as they do that, they go into the vault, and then you all have to look for them. 1:37:20 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports? David Grusch: I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): By UAPs, or by people within the federal government? So there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and or beings that has caused harm to humans? David Grusch: I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here, because they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right. So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing. 1:38:20 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): You've said that the US has intact spacecraft. You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft? David Grusch: I have to be careful to describe what I've seen firsthand and not in this environment. But I could answer that question behind closed doors. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Have you seen any of the bodies? David Grusch: That's something I've not witnessed myself. 1:40:45 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): These aircraft, have they been identified that they are being produced by domestic military contractors? Is there any evidence that that's what's being recovered? David Grusch: Not to my knowledge. Plus the recoveries predate a lot of our advanced programs. 1:48:05 David Grusch: I’ve actually never seen anything personal, believe it or not. 1:51:00 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft? David Grusch: As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries. 1:51:15 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Were they human or non human biologics? David Grusch: Non human and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): And was this documentary evidence video, photos, eyewitness like how would that be determined? David Grusch: The specific documentation, I would have to talk to you in a SCIF about that. 1:53:10 Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Commander Fravor, we've all seen the floating tic tac video that you engage with on November 14, 2004. Can you briefly talk about why you were off the coast of San Diego that day? Cmdr. David Fravor: Yeah, we were at a work up with all the battle groups. So we integrate the ships with the carrier, the airway with the carrier and we start working. So we were doing an air-to-air defense to hone not only our skills, but those of the USS Princeton, and when they had been tracking him for two weeks. The problem was, there were never manned aircraft airborne when they were tracking them. And this was the first day and unfortunately, we were the ones airborne and went and saw it. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Do you remember the weather that day? It was a cloudy or windy or anything out of the ordinary on the Pacific coast. Cmdr. David Fravor: If you're familiar with San Diego, it was a perfect day. Light winds, no whitecaps, clear skies, not a cloud. For flying, it was the best. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now, is it true that you saw, in your words, a 40 foot flying tic tac shaped object? Cmdr. David Fravor: That's correct. Or for some people that can't know what a Tic Tac is, it's a giant flying propane tank. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Did this object come up on radar or interfere with your radar or the USS Princeton? Cmdr. David Fravor: The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E2 tracked it. We never saw it on our radars, our fire control radars never picked it up. The other airplane that took the video did get it on a radar as soon as it tried to lock in to jam the radar, spit the lock and he's rapidly switched over to the targeting pod which you can do in the F/A 18 Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): From what you saw that day and what you've seen on video. Did you see any source of propulsion from the flying object including on any potential thermal scans from your aircraft? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, there is none. There is no IR plume coming out. And Chad who took the video went through all the EO, which is black and white TV and the IR modes, and there's no visible signs of reflection. It's just sitting in space at 20,000 feet. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): In your career. Have you ever seen a propulsion system that creates no thermal exhaust? Cmdr. David Fravor: No. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Can you describe how the aircraft maneuvered? Cmdr. David Fravor: Abruptly, very determinant. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was aware of our presence. And it had acceleration rates, I mean, it went from zero to matching our speed and no time at all. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now if the fastest plane on Earth was trained to do these maneuvers that you saw, would it be capable of doing that? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, not even close Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Just to confirm, this object had no wings, correct? Cmdr. David Fravor: No wings. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): Now the aircraft that you were flying, was it armed? Cmdr. David Fravor: No, never felt threatened at all. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY): If the aircraft was armed, do you believe that your aircraft or any aircraft in possession of the United States could have shot the tic tac down? Cmdr. David Fravor: I'd say no. Just on the performance, it would have just left in a split second. 1:58:10 Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Is there any indication that these UAPs could be essentially collecting reconnaissance information? Mr. Graves? Ryan Graves: Yes. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Grusch? David Grusch: Fair assessment. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Fravor? Cmdr. David Fravor: Very possible. 1:59:05 Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN): Mr. Graves and Fravor, in the event that your encounters had become hostile, would you have had the capability to defend yourself, your crew, your aircraft? Ryan Graves: Absolutely not. Cmdr. David Fravor: No. 2:00:55 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): I might have asked this before, but I want to make sure. Do you have any personal knowledge of someone who's possibly been injured working on legacy UAP reverse engineering? David Grusch: Yes. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Okay. How were they injured? Was it something like a radioactive type situation or something we didn't understand? I've heard people talk about Havana syndrome type incidences. What what was your recollection of that? David Grusch: I can't get into specifics, but you could imagine assessing an unknown unknown, there's a lot of potentialities you can't fully prepare for. 2:02:10 Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Are you aware of any individuals that are participating in reverse engineering programs for non terrestrial craft? David Grusch: Personally, yes. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): Do you know any that would be willing to testify if there were protections for them? David Grusch: Certainly closed door, and assurances that breaking their NDA, they're not going to get administratively punished. 2:03:45 Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): Referring to your news nation interview, you had referenced specific treaties between governments. Article III of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia identifies UAPs. It specifically mentions them. To your knowledge. Are there safety measures in place with foreign governments or other superpowers to avoid an escalatory situation in the event that a UAP malevolent event occurs? David Grusch: Yeah, you're referring to an actual public treaty in the UN register. It's funny you mentioned that, the agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of a nuclear war signed in 1971, unclassified treaty publicly available. And if you cite the George Washington University national security archives, you will find the declassified, in 2013, specific provisions in this specific Red Line Flass message traffic with the specific codes pursuant to Article Three and also situation two, which is in the the previously classified NSA archive. What I would recommend and I tried to get access, but I got a wall of silence at the White House, was the specific incidents when those message traffic was used, I think some scholarship on that would open the door to a further investigation using those publicly available information. 2:05:20 David Grusch: I have concerns, based on the interviews I conducted under my official duties, of potential violations of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the FAR. 2:06:10 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): What was your general attitude or perspective on the UFO discussion before that happened? Cmdr. David Fravor: I never felt that we were alone with all the planets out there. But I wasn't a UFO person. I wasn't, I wasn't watching History Channel and MUFON and all that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And have you had any experiences or encounters since that happened? Cmdr. David Fravor: No. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And so, have you formed any general conclusions about what you think you experienced then? Cmdr. David Fravor: Yes, I think what we experienced was, like I said, well beyond the material science and the capabilities that we had at the time, that we have currently, or that we're going to have in the next 10 to 20 years. 2:06:55 Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): You've been able to answer in great detail on certain questions, and then other things you say you're not able to respond to. Can you just explain where you're drawing the line? What's the basis for that? David Grusch: Yeah, based on my DOPSR security review and what they've determined that is unclassified. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): I see, so you're answering any questions that just call upon your knowledge of unclassified questions, but anything that relates to classified matters you're not commenting on in this context? David Grusch: In an open session, but happy to participate in a closed session at the right level. 2:08:15 Ryan Graves: Certainly I think the most vivid sighting of that would have been near mid air that we had at the entrance to our working area. One of these objects was completely stationary at the exact entrance to our working areas, not only geographically but also at altitude. So it was right where all the jets are going, essentially, on the Eastern Seaboard. The two aircraft flew within about 50 feet of the object and that was a very close visual sighting. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And you were in one of the aircraft. Ryan Graves: I was not. I was there when the pilot landed. He canceled the mission after. I was there. He was in the ready room with all his gear on with his mouth open. And I asked him what the problem was and he said he almost hit one of those darn things. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): He said he was 50 feet away from it? Ryan Graves: Yes, sir. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): And his description of the object was consistent with the description you gave us before? Ryan Graves: A dark gray or black cube inside of a clear sphere. Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-MD): Inside of a clear sphere. With no self evident propulsion system. Ryan Graves:: No wings, no IR energy coming off of the vehicle, nothing tethering it to the ground. And that was primarily what we're experiencing out there. April 19, 2023 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: , Director, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office Clips 2:00:50 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: The AARO team of more than three dozen experts is organized around four functional areas: operations, scientific research, integrated analysis, and strategic communications. 2:01:25 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Consistent with legislative direction, AARO is also carefully reviewing and researching the US government's UAP-related historical record. 2:02:05 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: AARO is the culmination of decades of DOD, intelligence community, and congressionally directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by US military personnel, specifically navy and air force pilots. 2:03:15 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: However, it would be naive to believe that the resolution of all UAP can be solely accomplished by the DOD and IC alone. We will need to prioritize collection and leverage authorities for monitoring all domains within the continental United States. AARO's ultimate success will require partnerships with the inner agency, industry partners, academia and the scientific community, as well as the public. 2:04:15 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena, or other readily explainable sources. While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases. Without sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we set for resolution, and I will not close a case that I cannot defend the conclusions of. 2:06:00 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: AARO is a member of the department's support to the administration's Tiger Team effort to deal with stratospheric objects such as the PRC high altitude balloon. When previously unknown objects are successfully identified, it is AARO's role to quickly and efficiently hand off such readily explainable objects to the intelligence, law enforcement, or operational safety communities for further analysis and appropriate action. In other words, AARO’s mission is to turn UAP into SEP, Somebody Else's Problem. 2:07:30 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, offworld technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform [the] U.S. government's leadership of its findings. For those few cases that have leaked to the public previously and subsequently commented on by the US government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views to submit your research to credible peer reviewed scientific journals. AARO is working very hard to do the same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media. 2:13:20 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: How are we going to get more data? We are working with the joint staff to issue guidance to all the services and commands that will then establish what are the reporting requirements, the timeliness, and all of the data that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all of the associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the case and it's been happenstance that data has been collected. 2:17:20 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: As of this week we are tracking over a total of 650 cases. 2:17:45 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: Let me walk everyone through what our analytic process looks like. We have essentially a five step process. We get our cases in with all the data, we create a case for that event. My team does a preliminary scrub of all of those cases as they come in, just to sort out, do we have any information that says this is in one of those likely categories? It's likely a balloon, it's likely a bird, it's likely some other object, or we don't know. Then we prioritize those based off of where they are. Are they attached to a national security area? Does it show some anomalous phenomenology that is of interest? If it's just a spherical thing that's floating around with the wind and it has no payload on it, that's going to be less important than something that has a payload on it, which will be less important than something that's maneuvering. So there's sort of a hierarchy of just binning the priorities, because we can't do all of them at once. Once we do that and we prioritize them, we take that package of data in that case and I have set up two teams, think of this as a Red Team Blue Team, or competitive analysis. I have an intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts and I have an S&T team made up of scientists and engineers, and the people that actually build a lot of these sensors are physicists, because you know, if you're a physicist, you can do anything. But they're not associated with the intel community, they're not intel officers. So they they look at this through the lens of the sensor, of what the data says. We give that package to both teams. The intelligence community is going to look at it through the lens of the intelligence record, and what they assess, and their intel tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations on how they do that. The scientific community, the technical community is going to look at it through the lens of "What is the data telling me? What is the sensor doing? What would I expect a sensor response to be?" and back that out. Those two groups give us their answers. We then adjudicate. If they agree, then I am more likely to close that case, if they agree on what it is. If they disagree, we will have an adjudication. We'll bring them together, we'll take a look at the differences, we'll adjudicate. Why do you say one thing and you say another? We will then come to a case recommendation that will get written up by my team. That then goes to a Senior Technical Advisory Group, which is outside of all of those people, made up of senior technical folks and intel analysts and operators retired out of the community. And they essentially peer review what that case recommendation is. They write their recommendations, that comes back to me, I review it, we make a determination, and I'll sign off one way or the other, and then that will go out as the case determination. Once we have an approved web portal to hang the unclassified stuff, we will downgrade and declassify things and put it out there. In the meantime, we're putting a lot of these on our classified web portal where we can then collaborate with the rest of the community so they can see what's going on. In a nutshell, that is the process. 2:27:10 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: There are emerging capabilities out there that in many instances, Russia and China, China in particular, are on par or ahead of us in some areas. So previously, I used to be the Defense Department's intelligence officer for science and technical intelligence. That was our job to look for, what does all that look like? And then my last several years of course, in Space Command, doing space. The adversary is not waiting. They are advancing and they're advancing quickly. If I were to put on some of my old hats, I would tell you, they are less risk averse at technical advancement than we are. They are just willing to try things and see if it works. Are there capabilities that could be employed against us in both an ISR and a weapons fashion? Absolutely. Do I have evidence that they're doing it in these cases? No, but I have concerning indicators. 2:43:45 Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick: So the vision is, at one point, at some point in the future, you should not need an AARO. If I'm successful in what I'm doing, we should be able to normalize everything that we're doing into existing processes, functions, agencies and organizations, and make that part of their mission and their role. Right now the niche that we form is really going after the unknowns. I think you articulated it early on, this is a hunt mission for what might somebody be doing in our backyard that we don't know about? That is what we are doing, but at some point, we should be able to normalize that. That's why it's so important the work we're doing with joint staff to normalize that into DoD policy and guidance. We are bringing in all of our interagency partners. So NASA is providing a liaison for us, I have FBI liaison, I have OSI liaison, I have service liaisons, half of my staff come from the [Intelligence Community], half of my staff come from other scientific and technical backgrounds, I have DOE. So what we're trying to do is ensure, again, as I make UAP into SEP they get handed off to the people that that is their mission to go do, so that we aren't duplicating that. I'm not going to go chase the Chinese high altitude balloon, for example. That's not my job. It's not an unknown, and it's not anomalous anymore. Now it goes over to them. May 17, 2022 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Witnesses: , Deputy Director, Office of Naval Intelligence , Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence and Security, Department of Defense Clips 10:00 Ronald Moultrie: The NDAA for fiscal year 2022 has helped us to establish a dedicated office to oversee processes and procedures for the timely collection, processing, analysis, and reporting of UAP related data. 10:15 Ronald Moultrie: What are UAP? Put simply, UAP are airborne objects that, when encountered, cannot be immediately identified. 10:25 Ronald Moultrie: It is the department's contention that by combining appropriately structured, collected data with rigorous scientific analysis, any object that we encounter can likely be isolated, characterized, identified and if necessary, mitigated. 10:40 Ronald Moultrie: We know that our service members have encountered unidentified aerial phenomenon. And because UAPs pose potential flight safety and general security risks, we are committed to a focused effort to determine their origins. Our effort will include the thorough examination of adversarial platforms and potential breakthrough technologies, US government or commercial platforms, Allied or partner systems, and other natural phenomena. 11:15 Ronald Moultrie: We also understand that there has been a cultural stigma surrounding UAP. Our goal is to eliminate the stigma by fully incorporating our operators and mission personnel into a standardized data gathering process. We believe that making UAP reporting a mission imperative will be instrumental to the effort's success. 11:45 Ronald Moultrie: To optimize the department's UAP work, we are establishing an office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That office's function is clear: to facilitate the identification of previously unknown or unidentified airborne objects in a methodical, logical, and standardized manner. 13:50 Scott Bray: Since the early 2000s, we have seen an increasing number of unauthorized and or unidentified aircraft or objects in military controlled training areas and training ranges and other designated airspace. Reports of sightings are frequent and continuing. We attribute this increase in reporting to a number of factors, including our work to destigmatize reporting, an increase in the number of new systems such as quad copters and unmanned aerial systems that are in our airspace, identification of what we can classify as clutter (mylar balloons and other types of of air trash), and improvements in the capabilities of our various sensors to detect things in our airspace. 14:50 Scott Bray: The basic issues, then and now, are twofold. First, incursions in our training ranges by unidentified objects represent serious hazards to safety of flight. In every aspect of naval aviation, safety of our air crews is paramount. Second, intrusions by unknown aircraft or objects pose potential threats to the security of our operations. Our aviators train as they would fight, so any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations by revealing our capabilities, our tactics, techniques or procedures are of great concern to the Navy and Department of Defense. 16:40 Scott Bray: The direct result of those efforts has been increased reporting with increased opportunities to focus a number of sensors on any objects. The message is now clear: if you see something, you need to report it. And the message has been received. 18:55 Scott Bray: As detailed in the ODNI report, if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they likely fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government or US industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, or another bin that allows for a holding bin of difficult cases, and for the possibility of surprise and potential scientific discovery. 22:20 Scott Bray: If UAP do indeed represent a potential threat to our security then the capabilities, systems, processes and sources we use to observe, record, study, or analyze these phenomena need to be classified at appropriate levels. We do not want, we do not want potential adversaries to know exactly what we're able to see or understand or how we come to the conclusions we make. Therefore, public disclosures must be carefully considered on a case by case basis. 23:35 Rep André Carson (D-IN): This is the third version of this task force and, to be frank, one of Congress's concerns is that the executive branch, in administrations of both parties, has been sweeping concerns about UAPs under the rug by focusing on events that can be explained and avoiding events that cannot be explained. What can you say to give the American people confidence that you aren't just focusing our attention on low hanging fruit with easy explanations? Ronald Moultrie: Congressman, I'll start and then Mr. Bray, please feel free to weigh in. So the way that we're approaching it is with a more thorough, standardized methodology than what we have in the past. First and foremost, the Secretary Defense is chartering this effort, this is not someone lower in the Department of Defense, and he is assigned that task to the Office of Secretary of Defense's Under Secretary for Intelligence Security, that's me, because I'm responsible for looking at intelligence matters, I'm responsible for security matters, and this is potentially both. So we're concerning ourselves with the safety of our personnel, the safety of our installations and bases. There's no other higher power than what we have in actually getting after this. And as you have stated, we have been assigned that task to actually stand up an office, the AOIMSG, which I believe the name server will likely change, but we have moved forward in terms of moving to establish that office. We have, as of this week, picked the director for that effort, a very established and accomplished individual. 42:00 Scott Bray: I would say that we're not aware of any adversary that can move an object without discernible means of propulsion. The question then becomes, in many of these cases where we don't have a discernible means of propulsion in the data that we have, in some cases, there are likely sensor artifacts that that may be hiding some of that, there's certainly some degree of something that looks like signature management that we have seen from some of these UAP. But I would caution, I would simply say that there are a number of other events in which we do not have an explanation. There are a small handful in which there are flight characteristics or signature management that we can't explain with the data that we have. 43:40 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): With respect to the second two videos showing the small triangles, the hypothesis is that those are commercial drones that because of the use of night vision goggles appear like triangles, is that the operating assessment? Scott Bray: Some type of drone, some type of unmanned aerial system, and it is simply that that light source resolves itself through the night vision goggles onto the SLR camera as a triangle. 47:55 Scott Bray: Allies have seen these, China has established its own version of the UAP task force. So clearly a number of countries have observations of things in the airspace that they can identify. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH): And do we share data with some, with all? Are they sharing with us? Scott Bray: We share data with some and some share data with us. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH): But not necessarily all that have publicly reported something? Scott Bray: That's correct. 52:25 Scott Bray: When I say we can't explain, I mean, exactly as you describe there, that there's a lot of information, like the video that we showed, in which there's simply too little data to create a reasonable explanation. There are a small handful of cases in which we have more data that our analysis simply hasn't been able to fully pull together a picture of what happened. Those are the cases where we talked about where we see some indications of flight characteristics or signature management that are not what we had expected. When it comes to material that we have, we have no material. We have detected no emanations within the UAP task force that would suggest it's anything non-terrestrial in origin. 59:35 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): There have been no collisions between any US assets and one of these UAPs, correct? Scott Bray: We have not had a collision, we've had at least 11 near misses though. 59:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And there's been no attempt, there's no communications, or any kind of communication signals that emanate from those objects that we've detected, correct? Scott Bray: That's correct. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And have we attempted to communicate with those objects? Scott Bray: No. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): So we don't we don't even put out an alert saying, you know, "U.S., identify yourself, you are within our flight path," or something like that? Scott Bray: We haven't said anything like that. We've not put anything out like that, generally speaking. For example, in the video that we showed earlier, it appears to be something that is unmanned, appears to be something that may or may not be in controlled flight, and so we've not attempted any communication with that. 1:00:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And I assume we've never discharged any armaments against a UAP, correct? Scott Bray: That's correct. 1:01:05 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): How about wreckage? Have we come across any wreckage of any kind of object that has now been examined by you? Scott Bray: The UAP task force doesn't have any wreckage that isn't explainable, that isn't consistent with being of terrestrial origin. 1:01:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Do we have any sensors underwater to detect on submerged UAPs, anything that is in the ocean or in the seas? Ronald Moultrie: So I think that would be more properly addressed in a closed session. 1:05:30 Ronald Moultrie: So one of the concerns that we have is that there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting information out there that that could be considered to be somewhat self serving. We're trying to do what's in the best interests of, one, the Department of Defense, and then two, what's in the best interest of the public, to ensure that we can put factually based information back into the mainstream and back into the bloodstream of the reporting media that we have, so people understand what's there. It's important because we are attempting, as this hearing has drawn out to understand, one, what may just be natural phenomenon, two, what may be sensor phenomenology or things that were happening with sensors, three, what may be legitimate counterintelligence threats to places that we have or bases or installations, or security threats to our platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have with the resources that have been allocated to us, sends us off in the spurious chases and hunts that are just not helpful. They also contribute to the undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the American people have that we are trying to get to the root cause of what's happening here, report on that, and then feed that back into our national security apparatus so we are able to protect the American people and our allies. So it is harmful, it is hurtful, but hopefully, if we get more information out there, we'll start to lessen the impact of some of those spurious reports. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL): So just taking that a step further, that misinformation, false narratives, manufactured, what are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us where people have been held accountable by this misinformation or disinformation? Ronald Moultrie: I can't give you any examples where somebody has been legally held liable for putting something out there. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL): Well, what's the deterrent from people engaging in this activity? Ronald Moultrie: I don't know. I don't have that answer. That's something that [we] welcome the dialogue with Congress to talk about that with the members who helped legislate those laws to say what should be the legal ramifications that we could use to potentially hold individuals accountable, whether it be citizens or information that might be injected into our media by other other forces or other countries, if you will. 1:11:40 Ronald Moultrie: I think right now what's really important for us to protect is how we know certain things. So there are a lot of things that we know, whether it'd be about the thinking of other leaders around the world, the weapon systems that are being developed, or how we detect things that may be threats to us. Many of those things are the result of some of our most sensitive sources and methods. And we'll use those things not just for this effort, but those same sources and methods are used to help protect us from adversaries and from others who might mean to do us harm. There aren't separate UAP sensors, there's not a separate UAP processing computer, there's not a separate UAP dissemination chain or whatever. So it's the same processes, it's the same system that we have that helps us do all that. We need to protect that. 1:15:40 Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR): Do we have an example, can you cite a specific example of an object that can't be explained as having been human made or natural? Scott Bray: I mean, the example that I would say that is still unresolved, that I think everyone understands quite well, is the 2004 incident from Nimitz. We have data on that, and that simply remains unresolved. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD276: The Demise of Dollar Dominance

26 juni 2023 | 89 min

The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is diminishing, which reduces the power that U.S. leaders have over the global economic system. In this episode, hear highlights from recent Congressional testimony during which financial elites examine the current status of the global financial system and what Congress is being told to do to address perceived threats to it (and to their own power). Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes International Monetary Fund Updated June 21, 2023. International Monetary Fund. June 9, 2023. International Monetary Fund. Updated December 2022. International Monetary Fund. Argentina October 17, 2018. International Monetary Fund. January 11, 1999. International Monetary Fund. Ecuador March 13, 2003. International Monetary Fund. Smaller Banks within the World Trade System China World Trade Organization. World Trade Organization. Stephen Kirchner. January 24, 2022. United States Studies Centre. Kurt M. Campbell and Ely Ratner. February 13, 2018. Foreign Affairs. The World Bank December 10, 2020. Bretton Woods Observer. Eric Toussaint. April 2, 2020. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. Yukon Huang. January 15, 2020. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congressional Stock Trade Tracking US Abuse of Sanctions Lawrence Summers et. al. June 15, 2023. Foreign Affairs. Allies Pivoting Jamil Anderlini and Clea Caulcutt. April 9, 2023. Politico. February 2, 2022. Al Jazeera. Witnesses Accessed June 24, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. Carla Norrlof - Atlantic Council. Audio Sources June 7, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Witnesses: Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University Dr. Michael Faulkender, Dean’s Professor of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland Dr. Daniel McDowell, Associate Professor, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University Marshall Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Dr. Carla Norrlöf, Senior Fellow, The Atlantic Council and Professor, University of Toronto Clips 34:05 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: In 2022, as the Ranking Member highlighted, 88% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involved the United States Dollar, a figure that has been roughly constant since 1989, which is testament to the substantial path dependence in international currency usage due to large positive network externalities. As the Ranking Member also highlighted, 59% of all official foreign exchange reserves were held in US dollars, which is down from a figure of 71.5% in 2001. By comparison 31% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involve the Euro, which is the second most commonly transacted currency, which accounted for 20% of official foreign exchange reserves. 34:50 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: The fact that 90% of all foreign exchange transactions continue to involve the United States dollar, and that global central banks continue to hold almost 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in US dollars confers net economic benefits on the United States economy. First, foreign demand for reserves of US dollars raises demand for dollar denominated securities, in particular United States Treasury's. This effectively lowers the cost of borrowing for US households, US companies, and federal, state and local governments. It also means that on average, the United States earns more on its investments in foreign assets than we have to pay on foreign investments in the United States, which allows the United States to import more goods and services than we export. Second, foreign demand for large reserves of US dollars and dollar denominated assets raises the value of the dollar and a stronger dollar benefits us consumers and businesses that are net importers of goods and services from abroad. Third, large reserve holdings of US currency abroad in effect constitutes an interest free loan to the United States worth about $10 to $20 billion per year. Fourth, the denomination of the majority of international transactions in US dollars likely modestly lowers the exchange rate risks faced by US companies. Fifth, the given the volume of foreign US dollar holdings and dollar denominated debt, monetary policy actions by foreign central banks generally have a smaller impact on financial conditions in the United States than actions by the United States Central Bank have on financial conditions in other countries. 36:40 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, the benefits of the US dollar's global reserve status are not without costs. The lower interest rates in the United States benefit US borrowers, especially the federal government. They also lower returns to US savers. In addition, though a stronger dollar benefits US consumers and businesses that net import goods and services from abroad, it does also disadvantage US firms that export goods and services abroad as well as firms that compete against imported goods and services. Furthermore, the perception of the US dollar as a safe haven asset means that demand for the dollar tends to increase in response to adverse macroeconomic events that are global in nature. As a result, the competitiveness of US exporters and US firms that compete against imported goods and services are likely to face an increased competitive disadvantage at times of elevated global macroeconomic stress. 37:35 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, despite these costs, studies generally find that the economic benefits of the dollar's prominent global status outweigh the costs, providing a modest net benefit to the United States economy. This does not include the substantial benefit to which the chairman referred of the United States dollar's centrality in global transactions, allowing the United States to utilize financial sanction tools when appropriate in support of national security objectives. 44:50 Dr. Daniel McDowell: With little more than the stroke of the President's pen or through an Act of Congress, the US government can use financial sanctions to impose enormous economic costs on targeted foreign actors, be they individuals, firms, or state institutions, by freezing their dollar assets or cutting them off from access to the banks through which those dollars flow. The consequences for individual targets, known as specially designated nationals or SDNs, are severe, significantly impairing targets capacity to participate in international trade, investment, debt repayment, and depriving them of access to their wealth. Over the last two decades, the United States has used the tool of financial sanctions with increasing frequency. For example, in the year 2000, just four foreign governments were directly targeted under a US Treasury Country Program overseen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Today that number is greater than 20, and if we include penalties from secondary sanctions the list gets even longer. The more that the United States has reached for financial sanctions, the more it has made adversaries and foreign capitals aware of the strategic vulnerability that stems from dependence on the dollar. Some governments have responded by implementing anti-dollar policies measures that are designed to reduce an economy's reliance on the US currency for investment in cross-border transactions. But these measures sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Others have produced modest levels of de-dollarization. Notable examples here include Russian steps to cut its dollar reserves and reduce the use of the dollar and trade settlement in the years leading up to its full scale invasion of Ukraine, or China's ongoing efforts to build its own international payments network based on the Yuan, efforts that have taken on a new sense of urgency as Beijing has become more aware of its own strategic vulnerabilities from Dollar dependence. 47:05 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The United States should reconsider the use of so-called symbolic financial sanctions. That is, if the main objective of a tranche of sanctions is to signal to the world or to a domestic audience that Washington disapproves of a foreign government's policy choices, other measures that can send a similar signal but do not politicize the dollar system ought to be considered first. Second, the use of financial sanctions against issuers of potential rival currencies in particular, China and its Yuan should face a higher bar of scrutiny. Even a small targeted sanctions program provides information to our adversaries about their vulnerabilities, and gives them time to prepare for a future event when a broad US sanctions program may be called upon as part of a major security crisis, when such measures will be most needed. Finally, whenever possible, US financial sanctions should be coordinated with our allies in Europe and Asia, who should feel as if they are key stakeholders in the dollar system and not vassals to it. Such coordinated efforts will prevent our friends from seeking to conduct business with U.S. adversaries outside of the dollar system and send a message to the whole world that moving activities into secondary currencies, like the Euro or the Yen, is not a safe haven. 48:35 Marshall Billingslea: I'll say at the outset that I agree with you and others that to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the dollar's demise have been greatly exaggerated. That said, we need to remind ourselves that in the 16th century the Spanish silver dollar was the dominant currency, in the 17th century it was Dutch florins, in the 18th century it was the pound sterling. The link between a nation's currency and its role as the relatively dominant political actor on the world stage is pretty clear. And that is why people like Lula from Brazil, Putin and Xi all aspire to undercut the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency. 50:00 Marshall Billingslea: If we look at what Russia did in the run-up to its further invasion of Ukraine, they began dumping ownership of treasury bonds in 2018. In that year, they plummeted from $96 billion and holdings down to $15 billion and they also started buying large amounts of gold. China is now, as the Ranking Member has observed, embarking on its own its own gold buying spree. I haven't seen the data for May, but April marked the sixth straight month of Chinese expansion in its gold holdings, and I'm not sure I believe the official figures. We have to recall that China is the dominant gold mining player around the world and half of those gold mining companies are state-owned. So the actual size of China's war chest when it comes to gold reserves may be far higher. In fact, I suspect inevitably far higher than official numbers suggest. Last year China also started dumping its treasuries. 2022 marked the largest or second largest decrease on record, with a drop of about $174 billion, and China stood at the lowest level since 2010. In terms of its holdings, though, this past March they did reverse course. This bears close watching because a sell-off may be a strong indicator of planned aggression. 51:20 Marshall Billingslea: The sheer size of the Chinese economy dwarfs what we've been contending with in the form of Iran, Russia, and so on. And one of the first things that the Biden administration did in the wake of Russia's attack was start sanctioning Russian banks and de-SWIFTing them. That's one thing when you're going after an economy smaller than the size of Texas; it's quite another when you consider that out of the 100 largest banks in the world, China has 20, and all four of the top four are Chinese banks. And that is why many within the Treasury contended when I was there, and they will contend to this day, that these Chinese banks are simply too big to sanction. I don't agree that we can allow that to stand but I do believe we have to start taking very swift action to put us in a situation where we could take punitive measures on these banks if necessary. 54:10 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: I will note that the Dollar's dominance is not quite as strong amongst private actors and private markets as it is with governments. In private transactions, it averages about 45% of the world's total. That includes FX transactions, but also things like issuance of international debt, securities, and cross-border banking. 54:55 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: The Chinese Yuan poses no immediate threat to dollar dominance. It accounts for roughly 3% of overall reserves. So far China has been successful in promoting the Yuan with its trade partners, but the Yuan is scarcely used by countries outside trade with China. China is a potential long term challenger due to its active pursuit of trade and investment relationships. If the Yuan is increasingly used by third countries, it will pose a greater threat to the dollar. 55:30 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: And in addition to these external threats, there is also a domestic threat. Flirting with the possibility of a voluntary default puts dollar dominance at risk. What should the US do to maintain dominance, to curb the domestic threat? Congress should consider creating an alternative mechanism for resolving political differences on government spending and its consequences. 56:00 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: To rein in external threats the United States should, whenever possible, implement multilateral sanctions in support of broadly endorsed goals to shore up the liberal international order. This is likely to limit dollar backlash. 59:40 Marshall Billingslea: The thing I do worry -- I come back to this fact that they've been buying a lot of gold -- that one of the things that they could do, which would be very concerning, if they wind up having larger reserves of gold than we believe, is they could start issuing Yuan or gold denominated, gold-backed Yuan contracts and that would further their ambition for introducing the Yuan onto the world stage. 1:05:00 Marshall Billingslea: China considers the actual composition of its foreign exchange reserves to be a state secret. So they don't publish and they they view it as a criminal offense to try to obtain that information in terms of the balance of how much is gold, how much Dollar or Euro denominated. But the numbers I've seen suggest that still at this moment, about 50% to 60% of their Foreign Exchange reserves are still in Dollars or Euros, which means that they are at high risk of sanctions; we can affect them. The problem is that that war chest that they've built up is enormous. It's more than $3 trillion that they have in Foreign Exchange reserves. Compare that with what Russia had at the onset of its assault, which was around $680 billion, of which we managed to freeze overseas half of it, but Russia is still keeping its economy going despite the Biden administration sanctions. So imagine how they're going to be able to continue with that sizable war kitty in Beijing if they do decide to go after the Taiwanese. 1:09:00 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: Short term I think the risk is that we continue to see diversification away from the dollar, PRC continuing to push other countries to use trade inverse invoicing and Renminbi, that they continue to promote the offshore Renminbi market, that they continue to promote or force bilateral clearing. Longer term, I think the bigger risk is that foreign investors no longer perceive the United States federal government debt to be as safe and risk free as it is today perceived. 1:41:20 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The demonstration of US control over the actual flow of dollars, of communication, absolutely provides information to adversaries to prepare for events where they may face similar circumstances. And so I think what we're seeing is China, we're seeing Russia, we're seeing other countries try to create alternative payments networks. Russia has its own SPFS payment messaging system. It's quite small. It was launched in 2014, not coincidentally, after the initial round of sanctions targeting Russia. In terms of CIPS, China's cross border payments network, Belarus announced it was having banks join immediately following the 2022 sanctions. So what I'm saying is there's a pattern between when the United States mobilizes control over the pipes and the messaging of cross-border payments and adversaries looking for alternatives. It doesn't mean they're using them, but they're getting plugged into the system as at least sort of a rainy day option in the event of a future targeting. 1:45:35 Dr. Daniel McDowell: I look at China not just as a typical country, because I think they're an alternative service provider. Most countries fall into alternative service users; they're looking for an alternative to the dollar. China, you could perhaps put Europe in this as well, are the only two sort of economic BLOCs capable, I think, of constructing an attractive enough cross-border payments network that could attract those alternative service users that are looking for that network. And so that's why I think again, with China, there should be a higher bar of scrutiny. 2:02:20 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: As deficits mount and as the debt burden rises above 100%, I think the Congressional Budget Office has it ending the budget window at about 119% of our economy, then we will probably observe an acceleration of diversification away from the dollar as a hedge. Again, I don't see another single currency displacing the dollar as the major international currency or as the major reserve currency, but continued diversification. May 25, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Witnesses: Jesse M. Schreger, Associate Professor of Business, Columbia Business School Mark Rosen, Partner, Advection Growth Capital and former Acting Executive Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic & International Studies(CSIS) Rich Powell, Chief Executive Officer, ClearPath & ClearPath Action Daouda Sembene, Distinguished Nonresident Fellow, CGD and CEO, AfriCatalyst Clips 39:55 Mark Rosen: The IMF is the global lender of last resort to countries that are in economic distress. IMF borrowers usually have a balance of payments problem, are running out of foreign exchange reserves, and so cannot meet their obligations. The IMF negotiates a set of economic policies with the borrower in government to alleviate the crisis, and, conditional on the government implementing the agreed policies, provides a loan in tranches, normally over a three year period. 41:00 Mark Rosen: The biggest challenge the IMF faces today is China which, as we've heard, has lent vast sums to emerging market and low income countries in a non-transparent and irresponsible manner. Many IMF members are now struggling to repay China. 42:05 Mark Rosen: The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF and has veto power over certain key decisions and it's critical that the US continues to maintain its ownership of more than 15% which enables it to have this veto power. 42:20 Mark Rosen: China for some time, has been pressing for an increased quota share at the IMF. However, given its irresponsible lending, and then willingness to provide debt relief to developing countries, this is not the time to reward China with increased ownership at the Fund. Two other issues I'd like to focus on are anti-corruption and the catalytic role of the private sector in the work of the IMF. Corruption is a severe problem for many emerging market countries, which do not have strong institutions that can confront and root out corruption. The IMF is certainly doing a much better job than it did historically on anti-corruption, but I believe it's critical that it continues to make anti corruption laws and policies front and center in the conditions of its lending programs, as well as a focus of its technical assistance. Only by reducing corruption will many of these countries be able to attract the vast amount of private sector investment which is potentially available and remains the ultimate key to reducing poverty. Establishing a rule of law, including laws to protect private property is key to unlocking this investment. And it should be a focus of the IMF and World Bank to encourage these countries to improve the rule of law and to fight corruption. If they do that, emerging market countries can attract private capital and grow rapidly as many countries that have followed that path have already done so successfully. 44:45 Daniel Runde: Multilateral development banks, MDBs, under US and Western leadership are one way that we can respond with something. The United States built and strengthened the MDB system. MDBs provide money, advice, data and convening power to help developing countries solve problems. If the US exerts its influence over these institutions, they are forced multipliers of a US-led global system. If we disregard our leadership role, then other actors, including China, can exert influence over them. The World Bank Group is a series of institutions: it lends money to national governments, it has a private sector arm, and has an insurance arm. There are a series of other regional development bank's including the InterAmerican Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank -- Taiwan is a member of the Asian Development Bank -- the African Development Bank and the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction Development Bank, focused mainly on countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain. The United States has been instrumental in creating the majority of these institutions and remains the largest, or one of the largest, shareholders of every afformentioned MDB. Since the founding of these institutions, the US has used its shareholding power to shape the policies and activities of MDBs in indirect support of American foreign policy. 47:10 Daniel Runde: What role does China play in the MDBs? They're a shareholder. China continues to borrow from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. That is crazy. That needs to stop. China is a shareholder. Also, Chinese firms can bid on MDB projects. China wins a lot of in terms of dollar value, a lot of the dollar value of World Bank contracts. Something to take a look at. 47:35 Daniel Runde: How does the Belt and Road figure into the MDBs? You all have heard of the Belt and Road. Infrastructure is now a strategic issue. China's Belt and Road Initiative is a combination of construction and financing projects for roads, airports, and energy around the world. Unfortunately for us, BRI is an ambitious project that speaks to the hopes of China's friends and potential friends. To counter the BRI, the US needs a positive alternative that says more than, "Don't work with China." Right? That's not a strategy. We've got to have an alternative. 1:12:50 Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY): How do we end China's eligibility to borrow from the World Bank? Daniel Runde: The Asian Development Bank has said they're going to end their eligibility by 2025. We should absolutely hold them to that. There is a temptation for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to continue to loan for a couple of reasons. One is they say, "Well, this is a window into how we can understand China better." There's lots of other ways to understand China better. And or this is a way for us to -- for a bunch of lending reasons that they do it. You all have the power of the purse, you have an ability, I think you should have blunted conversations with the administration about this. I suspect it's an open door, but it's going to require, I think, some pushing from Congress. I would encourage this committee to push the administration on ending lending to China. 1:14:30 Jesse Schreger: So fundamentally right now, the Renminbi is not yet positioned to compete with the US dollar for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the reason that the dollar plays the role it does in the international financial system is it provides the global safe asset. You're confident, except for the upcoming debt ceiling, that you will always be paid back if you own US dollars. That's fundamentally what you know. When you contemplate investing in China and holding Chinese Renminbi as reserves, you're not necessarily sure that you're gonna be able to turn that piece of paper into the goods and services that you need or intervening in FX markets. 1:21:15 Jesse Schreger: First and foremost, what China is trying to do is essentially convince countries around the world that the Renminbi is an alternative asset to invoice your trade and to invest in. And so on the investment side, they've been working very hard to actually allow in foreign capital, encouraging foreign central banks to hold Renminbi denominated bonds as their reserves. And on the trade side, they're encouraging firms to invoice, basically price their goods, in Renminbi. There's a few areas in which they've had challenges there. So first, we actually don't know who are holding most of these Renminbi denominated assets. What you can see is after the US sanctioned Russia back in 2014, it was the Russian Central Bank that effectively announced they were moving out of US dollar denominated assets and into Renminbi, so they did that publicly. And so China has effectively been trying to attract foreign capital of that form and a lot of the reasons for that is that China finds itself vulnerable in the dollar-based financial system. And so what I would say the fundamental area in which the United States can assure the dominance of the dollar is making everyone understand that US Treasuries are the world's safe asset that there is no state of the world in which the United States can or will default. 2:03:25 Jesse Schreger: I think the real way in which people start being able to issue and borrow in Renminbi is when people start thinking in terms of the goods that they need to buy and consume are in Renminbi. Fundamentally, most countries around the world, if they issue a bond in Renminbi, the calculation they have to do is then "okay, I'm going to take my renminbi and convert it into US dollars to buy the thing in which I need." And so while actions in the US financial system are certainly going to affect other countries decisions to borrow in Renminbi, the kind of underlying challenges in Chinese financial markets and fundamentally the lack of goods priced and sold in Renminbi are going to continue to hold back kind of a growth of this market for a while. And in particular, the fact that many countries are reluctant to try to raise money inside of China's liquid onshore capital markets for, effectively, fear of capital controls. If you've raised renminbi in China, you can't get that out and to your projects the way you can if you raise money in the US in dollars. 2:14:55 Daniel Runde: The business model of the World Bank is they lend money to richer countries with a pretty good credit rating and then they cross subsidize that by lending to poor countries with a poor credit rating. My view is, China can finance its own development, we should stop this practice. I think the Asian Development Bank has sort of gotten the memo, but the World Bank has not fully gotten the memo and they'll give you kind of World Bank-y answers to this sort of thing. We got to stop it. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): Mr. Runde, I could not agree with you more. And you highlighted earlier, you know, by 2025, China should graduate from this program. I'd offer that 25 is two years too late. We can start funneling them off that now. Daniel Runde: I agree, sir. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): I think you're in the right spot. Thank you. Music by Editing Production Assistance Cover photo

CD275: Debt Ceiling 2023: Crisis Normalized

12 juni 2023 | 122 min

Another unnecessary crisis averted. In this episode, Jen examines the debt ceiling crisis events of the past to show that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 - which raised the debt ceiling - is not likely to reduce our government’s debt but will likely ensure that our environment will be trashed for profit. She also examines the best path forward to ensure that the debt ceiling is never used for political leverage again. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Congressional Dish Episodes Debt Ceiling Overview Natalie Sherman. Jun 2, 2023. BBC. Noah Berman. Last Updated May 25, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. Raymond Scheppach. May 12, 2023. The Conversation. Scott Simon and Lennon Sherburne. April 29, 2023. NPR. New Development Bank Ben Norton. Jun 8, 2023. Monthly Review Online. Jun 5, 2023. New Development Bank. Debt Limit History Bipartisan Policy Center. Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts. Oct 15, 2013. The Guardian. Binyamin Appelbaum and Eric Dash. Aug 5, 2011. The New York Times. Clay Chandler. Sept 22, 1995. The Washington Post. 2023 Crisis Carl Hulse. May 2, 2023. The New York Times. Carl Hulse and Jeanna Smialek. Apr 7, 2023. The New York Times. The Debt Cristina Enache. Jan 31, 2023. Tax Foundation. Updated May 25, 2023. Investopedia. Updated May 2021. Tax Policy Center. The Law Law Outline Sets spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 2024: Over $886 billion for defense Over $703 billion for non-defense If there is a continuing resolution in effect on or after January 1, 2024 for fiscal year 2024, or a continuing resolution for 2025 on or affect January 1, 2025, defense and non-defense spending will be sequestered, meaning a 1% across the board cut Explains how the House of Representatives must implement this law Explains how the Senate must implement this law Takes money back from accounts where it wasn't all spent including from: The Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Specifically their COVID vaccine activities and vaccine supply chains All the money except $7 billion for COVID testing and mitigation All of the SARS-CO-V2 genomic sequencing money except for $714 million All of the money for COVID global health programs International Disaster Assistance funds for the State Department National Institutes of Health - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Community health centers National Health Service Corps Nurse Corps Graduate level teaching health centers Mental health and substance use disorder training for health care professionals and public safety officers Grants for mental health for medical providers Funding for pediatric mental health care access Grants for survivors of sexual assault Child abuse prevention and treatment Medical visits at home for families State and local fiscal recovery funds Rural health care grants Restaurant revitalization fund Elementary and secondary school emergency relief funds Housing for people with disabilities Housing for the elderly Grants to Amtrak and airports Air carrier worker support and air transportation payroll support Defunds the IRS by approximately $1.4 billion Requires agencies to submit plan to reduce spending in an equal or greater amount to every action they take that increases spending. This is easily waived and expires at the end of 2024.. At the end of September, people with Federal student loans will have to begin repayment of their loans, and the Secretary of Education is not allowed to implement an extension of the payment pause. Orders reports about work requirements for welfare payments In order to receive food benefits for more than 3 months in a 3 year period, "able bodied" people have to work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a work program for 20 hours per week unless that person is under 18 or over 50 years old, medically unable to work, is a parent with dependent children, or is pregnant. This provision increases the work requirement age over the next few years so it becomes 55 years old. This provision adds homeless individuals, veterans or foster kids until they are 24 to the list of people exempt from the work requirements This provision expires and the qualifications revert back to what they used to be on October 1, 2030 Changes the requirements for NEPA environmental studies to include "any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative..." and requires only "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of FEDERAL resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented" Adds circumstances when agencies will not have to produce environmental impact documents Requires environmental impact statements when the action has a "reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the HUMAN environment." Allows agencies to use "any reliable data source" and says the agency is "not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable." Assigns roles for "lead agencies" and "cooperating agencies" and says that the agencies will produce a single environmental document Sets a 150 page limit on environmental impact statements and 300 pages for a proposed agency action with "extraordinary complexity" Sets a 75 page limit on environmental assessments Requires lead agencies to allow a "project sponsor" to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements under the supervision of the agency. The lead agency will "evaluate" the documents and "shall take responsibility for the contents." Environmental impact statements must be complete in under 2 years after the EIS is ordered by the agency Environmental assessments must be completed in 1 year The agency may extend the deadlines Project sponsors are given the right to take government agencies to court for failure to meet a deadline "Congress hereby ratifies and approves all authorizations, permits, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline." Gives the Secretary of the Army 21 days after enactment of this law to issue "all permits or verifications necessary to complete the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline across the waters of the United States" "No court shall have jurisdiction..." to review "...any approval necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline... including any lawsuit pending in a court as of the date of enactment of this section." Suspends the debt limit until January 1, 2025 On January 2, 2025, the debt limit will automatically increase to whatever amount the debt level is at the end of the suspension Audio Sources June 1, 2023 Senate Session Parts & May 31, 2023 May 30, 2023 House Committee on Rules Clips 22:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I should note for my colleagues that Democrats could have raised the debt limit last year when they controlled the House of Representatives. 35:30 Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS): The Fiscal Responsibility Act finally ends the federal student loan moratorium and the so-called interest pause, effective August 31, 2023. For every month borrowers were allowed to skip payments, $4.3 billion were added to the American taxpayers debt. 41 months later, the moratorium has cost American taxpayers approximately $176 billion. 1:01:15 Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): The President put forward a budget months ago. Chairman Smith, do you know when the President submitted his budget to the United States Congress? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I don't remember but it was -- Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): It was March 9th. Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): It was late. It was due February 1st. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): Oh, I'm glad you noted that. Chairman Smith, when did the Republicans submit their budget? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): You would need to ask the budget committee. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): I would need to ask the budget committee. Mr. Estes. When did the Republicans submit their budget? [Pause] Only in the Rules Committee, by the way, could a witness lay blame at the president for being a few weeks late in submitting his budget when his party hasn't submitted a budget, period. 1:06:45 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): We also run the risk that we will one day not be the reserve currency of the world. The reason why our interest rates are so low comparatively, is because we are a safe haven for investment for the rest of the world. These sort of antics increasingly bring that into doubt whether or not folks will get their money, the folks who are lending to us. 1:24:15 Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM): Now, Standard and Poor's, they downgraded our credit rating. Have they increased that credit rating? Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): No. There are three credit agencies Standard and Poor's, which was the one that downgraded us in 2011, never reversed their downgrade. And frankly my concern and the worry right now is that the other two credit agencies will now follow suit, given the events of the last couple of months, which obviously look very much like 2011 all over again. 1:50:55 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): I continue to be stunned by the fact that when I look at this deal, which focuses on discretionary funding, that the people who seem to be asked to do the most or to absorb the hits the most are the people that least can afford it. The military budget is part of this discretionary budget, it's over 50% of the discretionary budget. The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan and Ukraine combined. And yet, if this moves forward, we see an increase in defense spending. I mentioned in my opening remarks, I don't know how many of you saw the 60 minutes piece the other day, I mean, we all know, of the cost overruns in the Department of Defense. I mean, the idea that we're spending $10,000 for a $300 oil switch. I mean, it's been there for a long time, and yet, we seem unable to want to grapple with that waste and those cost overruns. I don't know if it's the defense lobbyists or the campaign contributions or whatever it is, but somehow, when it comes to the military budget, you know, not only are we not holding them accountable, but you know, we say we're going to increase it even more, even more, we'll give you more. 2:57:40 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX): Look, I'm for NEPA reforms 100%. We need them for road projects, transportation, particularly for our energy industry. But my concern here that we've got language that none of us have fully reviewed, going through the committees of jurisdiction that has been adopted, that I've got colleagues texting me and saying they're not 100% sure if that language is good or bad for the purpose intended. I've got colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have raised those questions. And so the purpose intended, of course, is to streamline projects, whatever those projects may be. But I've got a text right here from GOP colleagues saying, Well, I'm not so sure that these will actually do what we think they will do, to streamline said projects. And in fact, a former high up in the administration, in the Energy Department under the Trump administration, just validated that concern by one of my colleagues. Yet we are putting forward this measures saying some grand improvement with respect to NEPA, that that's somehow something we should be applauding when it's not the full package of H.R. 1, which had gone through committee. And importantly, the one thing that I think is 100% clear, is that this bill fails to include even the most basic reform to President Biden's unreliable energy subsidies that were put forward in the so called inflation Reduction Act for the wealthy, elites, corporations, and the Chinese Communist Party just to be blunt. And frankly, it ensures that permitting reform will likely benefit renewables the most. Basically, if you're a government that is subsidizing the crap out of something, in this case, unreliable energy, giving massive subsidies to billion dollar corporations, giving significant subsidies to families that make over 100,000, 300,000 for EVs, because you're chasing your your dreams of, you know, a fossil fuel-less world. You're going to absolutely decimate our grid because you're not going to have the projects being developed for the gas and the coal nuclear that are actually required to keep your grid functioning. But yeah, that's what we're doing and I just for the life of me can't understand why we're applauding that. 3:15:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): So we've been asking for the IRS to give us a plan of how they wanted to spend the additional $80 billion that they had. They finally gave that to Congress about six weeks, eight weeks ago. They broke down how they're spending the $80 billion: $1.4 billion of it was for hiring more agents and what the bill before you does, it eliminates that $1.4 billion for this year. May 25, 2023 House Session, Parts & May 24, 2023 May 21, 2023 60 Minutes May 17, 2023 Senate Budget Committee Witnesses: Bobby Kogan, Senior Director, Federal Budget Policy, Center for American Progress Bruce Bartlett, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, United States Department of Treasury Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Dr. Adam Michel, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute Scott Hodge, President Emeritus & Senior Policy Advisor, Tax Foundation Clips 32:25 Bobby Kogan: Today I intend to make two points. First, without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, the ratio of debt to GDP would be declining indefinitely. And second, our rising debt ratio is due entirely to these tax cuts and not to spending increases. Throughout this testimony, When I say spending, I mean primary spending, that is spending excluding interest on the federal debt, and every mention of revenues, spending deficits, and debt means those amounts as a percent of GDP. Okay, according to CBO primary deficits are on track to stabilize at roughly 4% over 30 years, high enough to cause the debt to rise indefinitely. The common refrain that you will hear, that I heard when I staffed this committee, and that unfortunately, I expect to hear today, is that rising debt is due to rising spending. Revenues have been roughly flat since the 1960s and while spending was also roughly flat until recently, demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are now pushing the costs up. These facts are true. Our intuitions might reasonably tell us that if revenues are flat, and spending is rising, then the one changing must be to blame. But our intuitions are wrong. In CBO's periodic long term projections earlier this century, spending was projected to continue rising, but despite this CBO routinely projected long term debt stability, It projected revenues to keep up with this rising spending, not due to tax increases, but due to our tax code bringing in more as our country and the people in it prospered. That prosperity results in both higher revenue collection and higher real after tax income for the people whose incomes are growing, it is a win win. In other words, we used to have a tax system that would fully keep pace with rising spending. And then the Bush tax cuts were enacted and expanded, and then on a bipartisan basis eventually made largely permanent in 2013. Under the law dictating CBO and OMB's baseline construction, temporary changes in tax law are assumed to end as scheduled. In practice this meant that CBO is projection showed the Bush tax cuts ending on schedule with the tax code then reverting to prior law. 2012 was therefore the last year in which CBO is projections reflected the Bush tax cuts expiring. Yes, CBO's 2012 long term projections showed rising spending, but it also showed revenues exceeding spending for all 65 years of its extended baseline with indefinite surpluses, CBO showed debt declining indefinitely. But ever since the Bush tax cuts were made permanent CBO has showed revenues lower than spending and has projected debt to rise indefinitely. And since then, the Trump tax cuts further reduced revenues. Without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, debt would be declining indefinitely, regardless of your assumptions about the alternative minimum tax. Two points explain this. The first employs a concept called the fiscal gap, which measures how much primary deficit reduction is required to stabilize the debt. The 30 year fiscal gap is currently 2.4% of GDP, which means that on average primary deficits over 30 years would need to be 2.4% of GDP lower for the debt in 2053 to be equal to what it is now. The size of the Bush tax cuts their extensions and the Trump tax cuts under current law over the next 30 years is 3.8% of GDP. Therefore, mathematically and unequivocally without these tax cuts, debt would be declining as a percent of GDP, not rising. 41:45 Bruce Bartlett: The reason I changed my mind about taxes and decided that we needed tax increases happened on a specific day that I'm sure Senator Grassley remembers, if nobody else. And that was the day in November of 2003, when the Medicare Part D legislation passed, and I was just, you know, at the time, I thought the reason Republicans, and I was a Republican in those days, were put on this earth was to control entitlement programs. And I was appalled that an entirely new entitlement program was created that was completely unfunded. It raised the deficit forever by about 1% of GDP. And I thought a dedicated tax should have been enacted, along with that program, which I didn't oppose and don't oppose. In fact, I benefit from it at my age. But I just think that we need proper funding. And that was when I first started saying we needed to raise taxes, because we just can't cut discretionary spending enough to fix the problem. And I think this is the error of the House budget, which cuts almost entirely domestic discretionary spending, doesn't even touch defense, and I just think that's extraordinarily unrealistic and an unserious approach to our deficit problem. We simply have to do something about entitlements. If you're going to control spending, control the budget on the spending side, I don't think we're going to do that. I think we need a new tax. I have advocated a value added tax for many years, as a supplement to our existing tax system. It creates, you can raise a lot of revenue from it every virtually every industrialized country has one. The money could be used to fix things in the tax code, as a tax reform measure. Once upon a time in the 70s, and even the 80s, it was considered the sine qua non of Republican tax policy, because it's a consumption based tax system, a flat tax, and now many Republicans are in favor of something called the Fair Tax which is very similar except that it won't work. Administratively it's poorly designed. The Value Added Tax will work and that's why it should be a better approach to these problems. 49:15 Samantha Jacoby: Wealthy people who get their income from investments accumulate large gains as those assets go up in value over time, but they won't owe income tax unless they sell their assets. And if they never sell, no one will ever pay income tax on those gains. That's arguably the biggest flaw in the tax code. Policymakers should consider a tax like President Biden's budget proposal to enact a minimum tax on very wealthy households. This would treat unrealized capital gains, which is the primary source of income for many wealthy households, as taxable income instead of letting income accrue tax free across generations. 54:15 Dr. Adam Michel: Keeping government small is the best way to ensure that the American people can continue to prosper. 58:45 Scott Hodge: There are many elements of the tax code that benefit the wealthy and big corporations, I absolutely agree, and the inflation Reduction Act is the most recent example of corporate welfare in the tax code. 1:01:00 Samantha Jacoby: So the the 2017 law, it dramatically changed the way that foreign profits are taxed of multinationals. And so what happens now is large corporations who have big, big foreign profit centers, lots of foreign profits overseas, they pay a lower tax rate on those foreign profits than they do on their domestic profits or purely domestic businesses pay. 1:02:55 Bruce Bartlett: And one of the things I tried to do in my prepared testimony is look at what has actually happened in the seven years since then. And very few studies, I know, some of the tests, the footnotes and my colleagues testimony or to our projections based on studies were done in 2017, 2018. I tried to find things that were written more recently, perhaps, or preferably, I should say, in the academic literature, which I think is more substantive and more dependable. And I looked at peer reviewed journals, and the data that I could find showed no macroeconomic impact whatsoever. It didn't raise growth, it didn't lower growth. And I think I concluded in that -- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth, correct? Bruce Bartlett: Excuse me? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth. Bruce Bartlett: Oh, absolutely. No question about that. But I'm more interested in the macroeconomic effect on investment and growth and employment. And I would just close by saying that if a tax cut had no positive impact, then it can't have any negative impact if you get rid of it. Now, you may not want to for other reasons.... 1:05:25 Bobby Kogan: Right. So our demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are the reason that spending is increasing. If you break spending into two categories, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, everything else, including the everything else entitlements, the everything else is shrinking as a percent of GDP and it's the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are growing. And they are growing not because they are getting more, they're doing more, it's not because we're giving more and more to seniors, and to extremely poor people, but because it costs more to do the same. And that is the rising that is the demographics is changing the ratio of non workers to workers and there's also the rising health care costs. And so what this means is that if you want to spend less, you are necessarily saying that future seniors should be getting less of a benefit than they're currently getting. That's the only way to do it. Since that's the portion of the budget that's growing, if you want to cut that, you have to say that the current amount that we're doing for Social Security recipients, the current amount that we're doing for seniors, the current amount that we're doing for people on Medicaid is too much, and future people should be having less. That's the only way to do it. And, you know, the very nice thing that I had though, ii my testimony, we used to have a tax system that despite that rising, we keep up with that, and now we don't. 1:15:50 Bruce Bartlett: Well, first of all, I think in terms of tax shelters and tax evasion and extreme levels of tax avoidance, the problem isn't so much with the law as with the enforcement. And as you know, it's been the policy of Republicans to slash the budget of the IRS in real terms, for many years, which is a way of giving, privatizing tax avoidance to rich people and the rich individuals have the greatest power and ability to evade taxation. And I think it was really wonderful that the Congress increased the IRS budget, and I think it's just the height of absurdity that one of the major elements of the House Republican proposal is to slash the IRS budget again, even though the CBO has said this is a revenue losing proposition. 2:06:40 Bruce Bartlett: I think there's absolutely no question that the debt limit is unconstitutional, and not just under the 14th Amendment, section four, but under the general powers of the President. I mean, one of the things that I will point out is that the debt limit is a very serious national security issue. A huge percentage of the national debt that is owned by foreigners is owned by foreign central banks. They are not going to be happy if their assets are suddenly worth a great deal less than they thought they were. I think the President has full power within his inherent authority to simply declare the debt limit null and void. And I would point out that it's not a simple question of whether you just break the debt limit. I think a lot of people, even on this committee, forget the impoundment part of the Budget Act of 1974, which says the President must spend the money that is appropriated by law, he doesn't have the choice not to, which is what some Republicans seem to think that he can do. And he lacks that power. So I would agree that the President has that power. I wish he would use it. I wish it as sincerely as anything I believe in life. Thank you. May 16, 2023 May 16, 2023 May 15, 2023 May 10, 2023 Senate Session, Parts & May 19, 2023 May 9, 2023 May 4, 2023 Senate Session, Parts & May 2, 2023 Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD274: Norfolk Southern Train Derailment in East Palestine

28 maj 2023 | 84 min

On February 3rd, a train carrying 20 cars with poisonous, flammable chemicals derailed in East Palestine, OH. In this episode, we’re going to get some answers. Using testimony from four Congressional hearings, community meeting footage, National Transportation Safety Board preliminary reports, and lots of articles from local and mainstream press, you will learn what Congress is being told as they write the Rail Safety Act, which both parts of Congress are working on in response to the East Palestine train derailment. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes East Palestine Derailment Overview Alisha Ebrahimji and Holly Yan. Mar 23, 2023. CNN. Associated Press. Feb 8, 2023. NPR. Feb 8, 2023. Cleveland 19 News. Vinyl Chloride and Dioxins Associated Press. Feb 8, 2023. CBS News Pittsburgh. Oct 4, 2016. World Health Organization. Last reviewed Oct 21, 2014. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. National Transportation Safety Board Findings Last updated Mar 21, 2023. National Transportation Safety Board. Ian Cross. Feb 14, 2023. ABC News 5 Cleveland. “Vent and Burn” Decision Jordan Chariton. May 25, 2023. Status Coup News. Tara Morgan. May 15, 2023. ABC News 5 Cleveland. Daniel Bates. May 15, 2023. The Daily Mail. EPA failures Louis DeAngelis. Mar 29, 2023. Status Coup News. East Palestine Resident Health Problems Zsuzsa Gyenes. May 16, 2023. The Guardian. Nicki Brown, Artemis Moshtaghian and Travis Caldwell. Mar 4, 2023. CNN. Tara Morgan. Apr 28, 2023. ABC News 5 Cleveland. Norfolk Southern Norfolk Southern. Andrea Cambron, Jason Carroll and Chris Isidore. May 11, 2023. CNN Business. Aaron Gordon. Feb 15, 2023. Vice. Rachel Premack. Feb 14, 2023. Freight Waves. Josh Funk. May 16, 2021. AP News. Lobbying Against Regulations David Sirota et al. Feb 8, 2023. The Lever. ECP Brake Deregulation William C. Vantuono. Dec 5, 2017. Railway Age. Railway Safety Act Abigail Bottar. May 10, 2023. Ideastream Public Media. Staffing Cuts Heather Long. Jan 3, 2020. The Washington Post. Long Trains Dan Schwartz and Topher Sanders. Apr 3, 2023. Propublica. Bills Audio Sources May 10, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Clips 36:30 Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): This bill has changed a lot from what I introduced just a few short months ago. We’ve made a number of concessions to industry; a number of concessions to the rail industry, a number of concessions to various interest groups, which is why we have so much bipartisan support in this body but also why we have a lot of support from industry. March 28, 2023 March 28, 2023 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Witnesses: Debra Shore, Regional Administrator, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Wesley Vins, Health Commissioner, Columbiana County General Health District Anne M. Vogel, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Clips 30:40 Debra Shore: Since the derailment, EPA has been leading robust, multi-layered air quality testing, using state of the art technology in and around East Palestine, and that extensive monitoring has continued daily at 23 stations throughout the community. Since the fire was extinguished on February 8, EPA monitors have not detected any volatile organic compounds above established levels of health concerns. EPA has also been assisting with indoor air screenings in homes through a voluntary program to keep residents informed. As of March 21, more than 600 homes have been screened, and no sustained or elevated detections of chemicals have been identified. 33:00 Debra Shore: Here's how EPA is holding Norfolk Southern accountable. On February 21, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Norfolk Southern, including a number of directives to identify and clean up contaminated soil and water resources, to attend and participate in public meetings at EPA's request, and to post information online, and ordering the company to pay EPA's costs for work performed under the order. All Norfolk Southern work plans must be reviewed and approved by EPA. It must outline all steps necessary to address the environmental damage caused by the derailment. If the company fails to complete any of the EPAs ordered actions, the agency will immediately step in, conduct the necessary work, and then seek punitive damages at up to three times the cost. 46:30 Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): In one case, trucks were actually turned around at the gate of a proper, certified disposal facility and sent back to East Palestine to sit practically in my constituents backyard. Why did the EPA believe that it needed to send those letters? Debra Shore: Chairman Johnson, the instance you cite occurred before EPA assumed responsibility under the Unilateral Administrative Order for the cleanup. We don't know who told those trucks to turn around, whether it was the disposal facility itself or someone else. 48:50 Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): Why were they turned around? Debra Shore: This occurred during the transition period between Ohio EPA and US EPA assuming the lead for the emergency response. As such, under the Unilateral Administrative Order, all disposal facilities are required to be on the CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) approved off-site disposal list. So, we needed a few days to review what had occurred and ensure that those facilities that Norfolk Southern had contracts with were on that approved list. Once we determined which ones were on the approved list, it's up to Norfolk Southern to ship waste off the site. 1:03:30 Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): Is the EPA intending to use the Unilateral Administrative Order to ensure that Norfolk Southern establishes a health and environmental screening program beyond this initial cleanup period? Debra Shore: Right now, the focus of the Unilateral Order and our work with Norfolk Southern is to make sure the site is cleaned up. I think the responsibility for that longer term health effort, I support what Dr. Vins recommended, and that may have to be negotiat[ed] with Norfolk Southern going forward. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): Obviously, that hasn't started yet. Debra Shore: Not to my knowledge. 1:09:05 Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): What will take place in the remediation phase, what happens then? Debra Shore: Then there'll be restoration of stream banks and the places where the soil was removed from along the railroad sites and I think a larger vision for the community that they're already beginning to work on, such as parks and streetscapes. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Right. Any idea of what kind of timeframe we're talking about here? I mean, are we talking like in my district, decades? Debra Shore: No. We believe the core of the removal of the contaminated site and the restoration of the tracks will be several months. 1:11:35 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): When did clean up responsibility shift from EPA to Norfolk Southern, and what protections were put in place to ensure the health and safety of the community during that shift? Debra Shore: Thank you, Congressman Pallone. The transition from the State agency, which has the delegated authority in every state, has an emergency response capability, and so Ohio was on the ground working with the local firemen and other agencies as EPA arrived shortly after the derailment. It is typical in these kinds of emergency responses for the state agency to take the lead in the early days and Norfolk Southern was complying with the directives from the state. They continued to comply, but we've found over time that it's important to have all the authority to hold the principal responsible party in this case Norfolk Southern accountable, which is why on February 21, several weeks after the derailment, EPA issued its Unilateral Administrative Order. 1:19:55 Debra Shore: In the subsequent soil sampling that's been conducted, we looked at the information about the direction of the plume from the vent and burn event and focused that primarily where there might have been aerial deposition of soot or particulate matter, and that those soil samples have been collected in Pennsylvania. Rep. John Joyce (R-PA): And today, what soil, air, and water tests are continuing to occur in Pennsylvania? Debra Shore: Additional soil samples will be collected in collaboration, principally, with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the local Farm Bureau, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1:28:36 Anne M. Vogel: The reason that we have been able to say that the municipal drinking water is safe is based on an Ohio EPA map that pre-exists the derailment. This is the source water protection map. So the municipal wellfield is right here, if folks can see that, that big well in the blue. So the derailment happened way over here, a mile and a half away from the wellfield. And we know how the water flows, down this way, down this way, down the creeks. So the derailment would not have affected the municipal water source and we knew that very quickly after the derailment. 1:49:05 Debra Shore: Norfolk Southern has encountered some difficulties in finding and establishing contracts with sites to accept both liquid and solid waste. And I think we could accelerate the cleanup if they were able to fulfill that obligation more expeditiously. 1:51:20 Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): What are some of the long term health concerns that residents and your providers have? Wesley Vins: We've heard a whole wide range of concerns long term. Certainly, cancer is first and foremost, because of much of the information that the residents see online and here, as well as reproductive concerns, growth concerns, hormonal concerns Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Do you think there's a potential with the carcinogens or any of the toxins that it could lead to ailments for five years from now? Wesley Vins: Yeah, I understand your question. So the some of the constituents that we have related to this response, obviously are carcinogenic, however, we're seeing low levels, is really the initial response. So I think the long question is, we don't know. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): We don't know. 2:04:50 Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA): Administrator Shore, one concern my office has heard is that relocation costs are not being covered by Norfolk Southern for everyone in East Palestine. How is it determined whether a resident is eligible to have their relocation costs paid for? Debra Shore: I'm sorry to hear that. My understanding was that Norfolk Southern was covering temporary relocation costs for any resident who sought that, and I would direct you to Norfolk Southern to ask why they are being turned down. Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA): Can the EPA require that Norfolk Southern cover relocation costs for anyone in East Palestine? Debra Shore: I'll find out. 2:11:45 Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA): I guess my concern is, if the EPA is website says that the sampling data hasn't been quality assured, how did the EPA make the determination that the air is safe to breathe when it appears that the sampling data has not been quality assured? Debra Shore: Congresswoman, I'm going to ask our staff to get back to you with an answer for that. March 22, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Introduction Panel: U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown U.S. Senator J.D. Vance Mike DeWine, Governor of Ohio Misti Allison, Resident of East Palestine Witnesses: Jennifer Homendy, Chair, National Transportation Safety Board David Comstock, Chief, Ohio Western Reserve Joint Fire District Clyde Whitaker, Legislative Director, Ohio State SMART-TD Alan Shaw, CEO, Norfolk Southern Ian Jefferies, CEO, Association of American Railroads Clips 1:35:00 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Is there any relief being offered now to say, if you make the decision to move your home and move your family somewhere else, there is an avenue for you to sell your home and get a fair market price for it? Misti Allison: The short answer is, as of today, no. There is not a clear cut explanation or parameters of how you would do that. We've heard time and time again from Norfolk Southern that they're going to make it right and that they're looking into some long term health care monitoring and assistance and home value protection, but details of that plan have not been disclosed to residents as of today. 1:42:05 Jennifer Homendy: This derailment, as all accidents we investigate, was 100% preventable. 1:43:20 Jennifer Homendy: First, the definition of high hazard flammable train should be expanded to a broader array of hazmats and the definition's threshold of 20 loaded tank cars in a continuous block or 35 tank cars dispersed throughout a train should be eliminated. Second, DOT 111 should be phased out of all hazmat service. They're not as protected as DOT 117 tank cars. Third, people deserve to know what chemicals are moving through their communities and how to stay safe in an emergency. That includes responders who risk their lives for each of us every single day. They deserve to be prepared. That means access to real time information, obtaining the right training and gear, and having the right communications and planning tools. Fourth, light cockpit voice recorders in the aviation, audio and video recorders in the locomotive cab are essential for helping investigators determine the cause of an accident and make more precise safety recommendations. Recorders also help operators proactively improve their safety policies and practices. In the East Palestine derailment, the locomotive was equipped with an inward facing camera. However, since the locomotive was put immediately back into service following the accident, the data was overwritten. That means the recorder only provided about 15 minutes of data before the derailment, and five minutes after. The FAST Act, following terrible tragedies in Chatsworth and in Philadelphia, required Amtrak and commuter railroads to maintain crash and fire hardened inward and outward facing image recorders in all controlling locomotives that have a minimum of a 12 hour continuous recording capability. This was extremely helpful in our DuPont Washington investigation. Now is the time to expand that requirement to audio, and include the Class One freight railroads in that mandate. In fact, now is the time to address all of the NTSB's open rail safety recommendations, many of which are on our most wanted list. Fifth and finally, as the committee works on enhancing rail safety, I trust that you'll consider the resources that we desperately need to carry out our critical safety mission. Investments in the NTSB are investments in safety across all modes of transportation. 1:52:05 Clyde Whitaker: This derailment did not have to happen. And it makes it so much more frustrating for us to know that it was very predictable. And yet our warnings and cries for help over the last seven years have fallen on deaf ears and the outcome was exactly as we feared. Now the result is a town that doesn't feel safe in their own homes, businesses failing to survive and a railroad that prioritized its own movement of trains, before the people in the community, as well as its workers. It truly is a shame that operational changes in place prior to that incident are still in place today and the possibility for a similar disaster is just as possible. My entire railroad career I've listened to the railroads portray a message and image of safety first, but I have never witnessed or experienced that truth, one single day on the property. For years I've handled complaint after complaint regarding unsafe practices and unsafe environments, and for almost every single one I've been fought every step of the way. The truth is, ask any railroad worker and they will tell you, that their carriers are masters of checking the boxes and saying the right things, without ever doing anything meaningful toward improving safety. They're only focus is on the operating ratios and bottom lines, which is evidenced by the fact that their bonus structures are set up to reward timely movements of freight rather than reaching destinations safely, as they once were. Actions do speak louder than words. And I assure you that what you have heard, and will hear, from the railroads today are nothing more than words. Their actions are what's experienced by men and women I represent as well as what the people of East Palestine have been through. This is the reality of what happens when railroads are primarily left to govern and regulate themselves. 1:54:05 Clyde Whitaker: On July 11, 2022, I filed a complaint with the FRA (Freight Railroad Administration) regarding an unsafe practice that was occurring on Norfolk Southern (NS), despite existing operating rules to the contrary. NS was giving instructions to crews to disregard wayside detector failures and to keep the trains moving. This meant the trains were not being inspected as intended, and that the crews were not able to ascertain the integrity of such trains. This practice remained in place even after East Palestine. 1:54:40 Clyde Whitaker: It is a virus that has plagued the industry for some time, with the exception of precision scheduled railroading. Across America, inspections and maintenance is being deferred to expedite the movement of trains. No longer is identifying defects and unsafe conditions the goal of inspections, but rather minimiz[ing] the time it takes to perform them, or the elimination of them all together. 2:17:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Why did Norfolk Southern not stop the train then and examine the bearing to make sure that it didn't melt the axle and that you didn't have a derailment? If you'd stop then it would have prevented the derailment. So my question is, why did the second hotbox reading not trigger action? Alan Shaw: Senator, my understanding is that that second reading was still below our alarm threshold, which is amongst the lowest in the industry. In response to this, the industry has agreed to work together to share best practices with respect to hotbox detectors, trending technology, and thresholds. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So when you and I visited my office yesterday, you said your threshold is now 170 degrees above ambient temperature. As I understand it, at the time of the derailment, your threshold was 200 degrees above ambient temperature. 2:20:15 Clyde Whitaker: Make note that trending defect detector technology from being in the cab of a locomotive, when we pass a defect detector, it trends to an office like Norfolk Southern in Atlanta, Georgia. It doesn't convey to the railroad crews, which is a problem in this incident as well as many others that still continue to this day. What we need as a train crew -- which they say they listen, they haven't been listening for quite a while -- we need to be notified whenever these trending detectors are seeing this car trend hotter. That way we can keep a better eye on it. 2:22:35 Clyde Whitaker: It is feasible. The technology is there. Several days after East Palestine, we almost had a similar incident in the Cleveland area on Norfolk Southern. The defect detector said no defects to the crew. The train dispatcher came on and said, "Hey, we have a report of a trending defect detector on the train. We need you to stop and inspect it." Immediately after that the chief dispatcher, which is the person that controls the whole railroad, told them to keep going. If it were not for an eastbound train passing them and instructing them, "Hey, your train is on fire, stop your train." And we set that car out. They had to walking speed this car five miles. So the technology is there. They're just raising and lowering their thresholds to move freight. 2:25:15 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): His testimony is loud and clear: it would have been worse if there was only one person as a crew on that train. Do you disagree with him? Alan Shaw: Senator, I believe that we have operations infrastructure on the ground to respond to derailments. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): I think you're not answering the question, okay? It's almost like the last hearing all over again. Because I think the evidence is very clear that these trains can be absolutely safer, but that technology is no replacement for human beings. For example, it can't provide the cognitive functions of a conductor and can't collect visual cues during an emergency. Two-person crews make our trains safer and I wish that you would commit to that today, because I think it's pretty obvious that is the correct answer. I just get sick of industry executives talking about supporting the principles of regulation, while they lobby against common sense regulations like this one behind the scenes. 2:38:50 Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT): I understand that the business plan of Norfolk Southern includes a $7.5 billion stock buyback that is ongoing. Do you believe it would be appropriate to suspend that buyback program until all of the assurances that you are making to this committee and also to the people of East Palestine, about "making this right," that that stock back buyback program should be suspended until you have accomplished what you've assured us and what you've assured that people of East Palestine that you would do? Alan Shaw: Senator, we think about safety every day. We spend a billion dollars a year in capital on safety. And we have ongoing expenses of about a billion dollars a year in safety and as a result over time, derailments are down, hazardous material releases are down and injuries are down. We can always get better. Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT): Right, so you won't answer my question about suspending the buyback program. Alan Shaw: Senator, stock buybacks never come at the expense of safety Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT): I take that is that you will continue with your plan on the buyback. 2:51:30 Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): I know that high hazardous flammable trains have more safety regulations. Why would this not have been characterized as a high hazard flammable train if it had th ese hazardous materials on it as part of the 149 car train? Alan Shaw: Senator, thank you for your question. I'm not familiar with the entire makeup of the train. I know that a highly hazardous train is defined by a certain number of highly hazardous cars in it or a certain number of cars in a block. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Miss Homendy, maybe you can help me with that question. Jennifer Homendy: Yes, the definition of a high hazard flammable train involves class three flammable liquids only, 20 car loads in a continuous block, which would be a unit train, or 35 car loads of class three flammable liquids in a mixed freight train. That was not what was on this train. There were some that were class three defined flammable liquids, but this train was not a high hazard flammable train. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Right. It wasn't a high hazard train, but it had high hazardous materials that are very flammable that just lit up the sky. So is that something that you would consider that should be looked at as a safety improvement? Jennifer Homendy: Yes, Senator. We think that the thresholds of the 20 and 35 should be eliminated and we think a broader array of hazmat should be in the definition of high hazard flammable train. March 9, 2023 Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Witnesses: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) Alan Shaw, President and CEO, Norfolk Southern Corporation Debra Shore, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V Anne Vogel, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Richard Harrison, Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Eric Brewer, Director and Chief of Hazardous Materials Response, Beaver County Department of Emergency Services Clips 26:50 Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): The company followed the Wall Street business model: boost profits by cutting costs at all costs, the consequences for places like East Palestine be damned. In 10 years, Norfolk Southern eliminated 38% of its workforce. Think of that. In a decade they cut more than a third of their jobs. We see what the company did with their massive profits. Norfolk Southern spent $3.4 billion on stock buybacks last year and were planning to do even more this year. That's money that could have gone to hiring inspectors, to putting more hotbox detectors along its rail lines, to having more workers available to repair cars and repair tracks. Norfolk Southern's profits have gone up and up and up and look what happened. 33:35 Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): It is ridiculous that firefighters and local officials don't know that hazardous chemicals are in their community, coming through their community. In East Palestine you had a community of largely volunteer firefighters responding to a terrible crisis, toxic burning chemicals, without knowing what was on them. 34:50 Sen. JD Vance (R-OH): I've talked to a number of my Republican colleagues and nearly everybody has dealt in complete good faith, whether they like the bill or have some concerns about it, and these comments are not directed at them. Who they are directed at is a particular slice of people who seem to think that any public safety enhancements for the rail industry is somehow a violation of the free market. Well, if you look at this industry and what's happened in the last 30 years, that argument is a farce. This is an industry that enjoys special subsidies that almost no industry enjoys. This is an industry that is enjoys special legal carve outs that almost no industry enjoys. This is an industry that just three months ago had the federal government come in and save them from a labor dispute. It was effectively a bailout. And now they're claiming before the Senate and the House that our reasonable legislation is somehow a violation of the free market. Well, pot, meet the kettle, because that doesn't make an ounce of sense. You cannot claim special government privileges, you cannot ask the government to bail you out, and then resist basic public safety. 40:10 Alan Shaw: Air and water monitoring have been in place continuously since the accident and to date it consistently indicated that the air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink. 47:20 Debra Shore: Since the fire was extinguished on February 8, EPA monitors have not detected any volatile organic compounds above levels of health concerns. 47:45 Debra Shore: EPA has been assisting with indoor air screenings for homes through a voluntary program offered to residents to provide them with information and help restore their peace of mind. As of March 4, approximately 600 homes had been screened through this program and no detections of vinyl chloride or hydrogen chloride have been identified. 48:40 Debra Shore: On February 21, we issued a unilateral administrative order to Norfolk Southern which includes a number of directives to identify and clean up contaminated soil and water resources, to attend and participate in public meetings at EPA's request, and to post information online, to pay for EPA's costs for work performed under this order. EPA is overseeing Norfolk Southern's cleanup work to ensure it's done to EPA specifications. The work plans will outline all steps necessary to clean up the environmental damage caused by the derailment. And most importantly, if the company fails to complete any of the EPA ordered actions, the agency will immediately step in, conduct the necessary work, and then force Norfolk Southern to pay triple the cost. 1:04:30 Eric Brewer: Norfolk Southern hazmat personnel and contractors arrived on scene shortly after 11pm. At around midnight, after research of the contents, it was decided to shut down fire operations and move firefighters out of the immediate area and to let the tank cars burn. This is not an unusual decision. This decision was made primarily by Norfolk Southern's hazmat coordinator, as well as their contractor. 1:05:15 Eric Brewer: There was a possibility of explosion and we should consider a one mile evacuation. Ohio officials notified us that the one mile radius would now be from the leaked oil address. This would add additional residents from Beaver County in the one mile evacuation zone. Donington township officials went door to door, as well as using a mass notification system to advise the residents of the one mile recommended evacuation. It was stressed that this was a recommendation as we cannot force residents from their homes. Social media posts began to circulate stating that arrest would be made if people refused to leave during the evacuation. Let me be clear that was not the case in Pennsylvania, as this was not a mandatory evacuation. Monday morning, we assembled at the Emergency Operations Center in East Palestine. We learned Norfolk Southern wanted to do a controlled detonation of the tank car in question. We were assured this was the safest way to mitigate the problem. During one of those planning meetings, we learned from Norfolk Southern that they now wanted to do the controlled detonation on five of the tank cars rather than just the one. This changed the entire plan, as it would now impact a much larger area. 1:21:25 Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Why did you wait a month before you started to order the dioxin testing when the community was asking for this? Was that a decision that you made early on that it wasn't critical? Or how was this decision made? Debra Shore: Senator Capito, our air monitoring was searching for primary indicators, such as phosgene and hydrogen chloride, immediately during and after the burn. We detected very low levels which very quickly went even down to non detectable. Without those primary indicators, it was a very low probability that dioxins would have been created. They are secondary byproducts of the burning of vinyl chloride. 1:25:40 Alan Shaw: As you saw just this week, a six point safety plan that included a number of issues which we're implementing immediately to improve safety, including installing more wayside detectors. The first one was installed yesterday outside of East Palestine. 1:30:20 Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK): Mr. Shaw, when the vent and burn process was being made, who who made those decisions? And what was other considerations other than just burning it and letting the material burn off? Alan Shaw: Thank you for that question. The only consideration, Senator, was the safety and health of the community. And that decision was made by Unified Command under the direction of the Incident Commander? Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK): Who's that? Alan Shaw: The Incident Commander was Fire Chief Drabick. Norfolk Southern was a part of Unified Command. 2:07:25 Alan Shaw: Senator, the NTSB report indicated that all of the hotbox detectors were working as designed. And earlier this week, we announced that we are adding approximately 200 hotbox detectors to our network. We already have amongst the lowest spacing between hotbox detectors in the industry. And we already have amongst the lowest thresholds. 2:15:35 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Will you commit to compensating affected homeowners for their diminished property values? Alan Shaw: Senator, I'm committing to do what's right. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Well, what's right is a family that had a home worth $100,000 that is now worth $50,000 will probably never be able to sell that home for 100,000 again. Will you compensate that family for that loss? Alan Shaw: Senator, I'm committed to do what's right. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): That is the right thing to do. These are the people who are innocent victims, Mr. Shaw. These people were just there at home and all of a sudden their small businesses, their homes are forever going to have been diminished in value. Norfolk Southern owes these people. It's an accident that is basically under the responsibility of Norfolk Southern, not these families. When you say do the right thing, will you again, compensate these families for their diminished lost property value for homes and small businesses? Alan Shaw: Senator, we've already committed $21 million and that's a downpayment Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): That is a down payment. Will you commit to ensuring that these families, these innocent families, do not lose their life savings in their homes and small businesses? The right thing to do is to say, "Yes, we will." Alan Shaw: Senator, I'm committed to doing what's right for the community and we're going to be there as long -- Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): What's right for the community will then be balanced -- which is what we can see from your stock buybacks -- by what's right for Norfolk Southern. March 6, 2023 Speakers: Heather Long, Columnist and Editorial Writer, Washington Post Jennifer Homendy, Chair, National Transportation Safety Board Clips 5:14 Jennifer Homendy: Hazardous materials are transported on all modes of transportation. Our aviation system is the safest, but they're limited in what they can transport for dangerous materials. Pipelines can also be safe as well. They have a generally good safety record until one big rupture occurs. But then our railroads also have a good safety record. Train accidents in general, per million trains miles, are going up. So it's trending upwards, accidents. With that said, going on our nation's roads with these materials is not something we want to see. You know, we have 43,000 people that are dying on our nation's roads annually. We have a public health crisis on our roads. Millions of crashes are occurring, so transporting hazmat on our roads would be more dangerous than on our railways. 6:50 Jennifer Homendy: The numbers are trending upward on accidents overall and also for Norfolk Southern 8:20 Jennifer Homendy: That is a role that's very important for the NTSB and why we are independent of the Department of Transportation. We are not part of the Department of Transportation because we do conduct federal oversight to see if DoT's oversight of the freight railroads is adequate or inadequate and we may make recommendations on that. 10:20 Jennifer Homendy: Once it hit well over 250 degrees, it was time for the train crew to stop to inspect the axle, to inspect the wheel bearing and to possibly, in this case, set out the car. But it was too late because as they were slowing and stopping, the train derailed, the wheel bearing failed. And so there might need to be more conservative temperature thresholdss o that started earlier. Also, something the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has looked at is real time monitoring of temperatures and data trending from the control center so that they can see the temperatures increase over a period of time. In this derailment, or what we saw of this train and its operations, is the temperature of that wheel bearing was going up pretty significantly over the course of the three different wayside detectors, but you know, the crew doesn't see that. So that real time monitoring and data trending so that there's some communication with the crew to stop the train and take immediate action is definitely needed. We'll look at that as part of our investigation as well. 12:30 Jennifer Homendy: One thing I will mention is that these decisions about the placement of these hot bearing detectors and the thresholds really vary railroad by railroad and so there needs to be good decision making, some policies and practices put in place. 18:00 Jennifer Homendy: Electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes don't prevent a derailment. It could lessen damage. So let me explain that. So in this one, car 23 still would have derailed because a wheel bearing failed. So car 23 still would have derailed. Still would have been a derailment, still would have been a fire, and the responders, and Norfolk Southern, and the state and locals would have had to still make a decision on whether to vent and burn the five vinyl chloride tank cars. There could have been a possibility of less damage, meaning a few cars could have remained on the track later in the train. But as for most of the damage, that still would have occurred whether we had ECP brakes on this train or not. 19:50 Heather Long: There's a lot fewer people working on rail, especially freight rail. Does the number of people make any difference here? Jennifer Homendy: Well for this one, as you said, we had two crew members and a trainee. They all stay, as with every train, in the cab of the head locomotive. So I do not see where that would have made a difference in this particular train and this derailment. One thing we are going to look at is whether any changes in staffing lead to any differences in how these cars are maintained or how they're inspected. That is something we will look at. 21:05 Jennifer Homendy: Yeah, so the fire chief, upon arrival at the command center following the derailment, had electronic access to the train consist, which is the list of cars and the materials or liquids that the train is carrying, but none of the responders had the Ask Rail app. You could look up a UN number for a particular car and get the whole consist of the train. It's in an app that the railroads developed for helping emergency responders to get information following an accident. 25:05 Jennifer Homendy: And we have over 250 recommendations that we've issued on rail safety generally that have not been acted upon yet. Music by Editing Production Assistance

CD272: What is Taiwan?

30 april 2023 | 81 min

Taiwan’s status in the world has never been clear and neither has the United States’ position on the issue. In this Congressional Dish, via footage from the C-SPAN archive dating back into the 1960s, we examine the history of Taiwan since World War II in order to see the dramatic shift in Taiwan policy that is happening in Congress - and in law - right now. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Taiwan History and Background Susan V. Lawrence and Caitlin Campbell. Updated Mar 31, 2023. Congressional Research Service. Erin Hale. Oct 25, 2021. Aljazeera. Stacy Chen. Jan 16, 2020. ABC News. Randy Mulyanto. Sep 26, 2019. Aljazeera. U.S.-Taiwan Relationship Past Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Current Rupert Wingfield-Hayes. Apr 6, 2023. BBC News. Jude Blanchette et al. Aug 15, 2022. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Aug 4, 2022. DW News. News Wires. Feb 8, 2022. France 24. Dheepthika Laurent. Feb 8, 2022. France 24. Presidential Drawdown Authority Apr 19, 2023. U.S. Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. U.S. China Relationship Thomas L. Friedman. Apr 14, 2023. The New York Times. Laws Outline of Taiwan Provisions By the end of 2023, the Secretary of Defense is to assess the viability of our domestic critical infrastructure to identify chokepoints and the ability of our armed forces to respond to a contingency involving Taiwan, including our armed forces’ ability to respond to attacks on our infrastructure. “It shall be the policy of the United States to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist a fait accompli that would jeopardize the security of thepeople of Taiwan.” Fait accompli is defined as, “the resort to force by the People’s Republic of China to invade and seize control of Taiwan before the United States can respond effectively.” Congress wants the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command to carry out joint military exercises with Taiwan in “multiple warfare domains” and practice using “secure communications between the forces of the United States, Taiwan, and other foreign partners” Taiwan should be invited to participate in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in 2024. RIMPAC is a multinational maritime exercise, now the world’s largest, that has happened 28 times since 1971. The last one took place in and around Hawaii and Southern California in the summer of 2022. 26 countries, including the US, participated. PART 1 - IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENHANCED DEFENSE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TAIWAN Grants: Expands the purpose of the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing Program to “provide assistance including equipment, training, and other support, to build the civilian and defensive military capabilities of Taiwan” Authorizes the State Department to spend up to $100 million per year for 10 years to maintain a stockpile of munitions and other weapons (authorized by ). Any amounts that are not obligated and used in one year can be carried over into the next year (which essentially makes this a $1 billion authorization that expires in 2032). The stockpile money is only authorized if the State Department certifies every year that Taiwan has increased its defense spending (requirement is easily waived by the Secretary of State). Authorizes $2 billion per year for the Foreign Military Financing grants each year for the next 5 years (total $10 billion in grants). The money is expressly allowed to be used to purchase weapons and “defense services” that are “not sold by the United States Government” (= sold by the private sector). No more than 15% of the weapons for Taiwan purchased via the Foreign Military Financing Program can be purchased from within Taiwan Loans: Also authorizes the Secretary of State to directly loan Taiwan up to $2 billion. The loans must be paid back within 12 years and must include interest. The Secretary of State is also authorized to guarantee commercial loans up to$2 billion each (which can not be used to pay off other debts). Loans guaranteed by the US must be paid back in 12 years. Requires the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to create a military training program with Taiwan by authorizing the Secretary of State to train Taiwan through the International Military Education and Training Program. The purposes of the training include enhancements of interoperability between the US and Taiwan and the training of “future leaders of Taiwan”. The training itself can include “full scale military exercises” and “an enduring rotational United States military presence” Authorizes the President to drawdown weapons from the stocks of the Defense Department, use Defense Department services, and provide military education and training to Taiwan, the value of which will be capped at $1 billion per year The President is also given the “emergency authority” to transfer weapons and services in “immediate assistance” to Taiwan specifically valued at up to $25 million per fiscal year. “The Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations.” “The increasingly coercive and aggressive behavior of the People’s Republic of China toward Taiwan is contrary to the expectation of the peaceful resolution of the future of Taiwan” “As set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan should be maintained.” The US should continue to support Taiwanese defense forces by “supporting acquisition by Taiwan of defense articles and services through foreign military sales, direct commercial sales, and industrial cooperation, with an emphasis on capabilities that support an asymmetric strategy.” Support should also include “Exchanges between defense officials and officers of the US and Taiwan at the strategic, policy, and functional levels, consistent with the Taiwan Travel Act.” PART 3 - INCLUSION OF TAIWAN IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS “Since 2016, the Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, the Solomon Islands, and Kiribati, have severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan in favor of diplomatic relations with China” “Taiwan was invited to participate in the World Health Assembly, the decision making body of the World Health Organization, as an observer annually between 2009 and 2016. Since the 2016 election of President Tsai, the PRC has increasingly resisted Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. Taiwan was not invited to attend the WHA in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021.” “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not address the issue of representation of Taiwan and its people at the United Nations, nor does it give the PRC the right to represent the people of Taiwan.” By the end of Summer 2023, the Secretary of State must create a classified strategy for getting Taiwan included in 20 international organizations. The strategy will be a response to “growing pressure from the PRC on foreign governments, international organizations, commercial actors, and civil society organizations to comply with its ‘One-China Principle’ with respect to Taiwan.” PART 4 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS “Taiwan is now the United States 10th largest goods trading partner, 13th largest export market, 13th largest source of imports, and a key destination for United States agricultural exports.” Audio Sources February 9, 2023 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State Ely Ratner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense Clips 17:40 Wendy Sherman: We remain committed to our long standing One China Policy and oppose any unilateral changes to the cross-strait status quo. Our policy has not changed. What has changed is Beijing's growing coercion. So we will keep assisting Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability. 41:30 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): I want to get a little broader because I think it's important to understand sort of the strategic vision behind our tactics on everything that we do. So if we go back to the late 80s, early 90s, end of the Cold War, and the gamble at the time was, if we created this international economic order, led by the US and the West, built on this global commitment to free trade, that this notion of that this trade and commerce would bind nations together via trade, via commerce and international interest and economic interest, that it would lead to more wealth and prosperity, that it would lead to democracy and freedom, basically domestic changes in many countries, and that it would ultimately ensure peace. The famous saying now seems silly, that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war. That's obviously no longer the case. But the point being is that was the notion behind it. It was what the then Director General of the WTO called a "world without walls," rules-based international order. Others call it globalization. And basically, our foreign policy has been built around that, even though it's an economic theory it basically, is what we have built our foreign policy on. I think it's now fair to say that we admitted China to the World Trade Organization, Russia as well, I think it's now fair to say that while wealth certainly increased, particularly in China through its export driven economy, massive, historic, unprecedented amount of economic growth in that regard, I don't think we can say either China or Russia are more democratic. In fact, they're more autocratic. I don't think we can say that they're more peaceful. Russia has invaded Ukraine now twice, and the Chinese are conducting live fire drills off the coast of Taiwan. So I think it's fair to say that gamble failed. And we have now to enter -- and I think the President actually hinted at some of that in his speech the other night -- we're now entering a new era. What is that new era? What is our vision now for that world, in which not just the global international order and World Without Walls did not pacify or buy nations, but in fact, have now placed us into situations where autocracies, through a joint communique, are openly signaling that we need to reject Western visions of democracy and the like. So, before we can talk about what we're going to do, we have to understand what our strategic vision is. What is the strategic vision of this administration on what the new order of the world is? February 7, 2023 House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Witnesses: Chris Brose, Author Senior Director, Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Peter Singer, Strategist at New America and Managing Partner of Useful Fiction LLC Clips 1:16:30 Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery: We don't have weapons stowed in Taiwan. In the last National Defense Authorization Act you authorized up to $300 million a year to be appropriated for Taiwan-specific munitions. The appropriators, which happened about seven days later, appropriated $0. In fact, almost all of the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act, which you all pushed through the NDAA, ended up not being appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act that passed eight days later. 30:10 Chris Brose: Nothing you do in this Congress will make larger numbers of traditional ships, aircraft and other platforms materialized over the next several years. It is possible, however, to generate an arsenal of alternative military capabilities that could be delivered to U.S. forces in large enough quantities within the next few years to make a decisive difference. Those decisions could all be taken by this Congress. The goal would be to rapidly field what I have referred to as a "moneyball military," one that is achievable, affordable and capable of winning. Such a military would be composed not of small quantities of large, exquisite, expensive things, but rather by large quantities of smaller, lower cost, more autonomous consumable things, and most importantly, the digital means of integrating them. These kinds of alternative capabilities exist now, or could be rapidly matured and fielded in massive quantities within the window of maximum danger. You could set this in motion in the next two years. The goal would be more about defense than offense, more about countering power projection than projecting power ourselves. It would be to demonstrate that the United States, together with our allies and partners, could do to a Chinese invasion or a Chinese offensive what the Ukrainians, with our support, have thus far been able to do to their Russian invaders: degrade and deny the ability of a great power to accomplish its objectives through violence, and in so doing to prevent that future war from ever happening. After all, this is all about deterrence. All of this is possible. We have sufficient money, technology, authorities, and we still have enough time. If we are serious, if we make better decisions now, we can push this looming period of vulnerability further into the future. February 7, 2023 House Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr., USN (Ret.), Former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Foreign Policy Fellow, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology Clips 28:15 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL): China is the most challenging national security threat America has faced in 30 years. If we fail to acknowledge that and take immediate action to deter it, the next 30 years could be devastating for our nation. Under President Xi, the Chinese Communist Party has nearly tripled its defense spending in the last decade alone. The PLA has gone from an obsolete force barely capable of defending its borders to a modern fighting force capable of winning regional conflicts. The CCP now controls the largest army and navy in the world, with a goal of having them fully integrated and modernized by 2027. The CCP is rapidly expanding its nuclear capability; they have doubled their number of warheads in two years. We estimated it would take them a decade to do that. We also were just informed by the DOD [that] the CCP now has more ICBM launchers than the United States. The CCP is starting to outpace us on new battlefields as well. They have leapfrogged us on hypersonic technology, they are fielding what we are still developing. They are making advances in AI and quantum computing that we struggle to keep pace with. Finally, their rapid advances in space were one of the primary motivations for us establishing a Space Force. The CCP is not building these new and advanced military capabilities for self defense. In recent years, the CCP has used its military to push out its borders, to threaten our allies in the region, and to gain footholds on new continents. In violation of international law, the CCP has built new and commandeered existing islands in the South China Sea, where it has deployed stealth fighters, bombers and missiles. It continues to intimidate and coerce Taiwan, most recently by surrounding the island with naval forces and launching endless fighter sorties across its centerline. In recent years, the CCP has also established a space tracking facility in South America to monitor U.S, satellites, as well as an overseas naval base miles from our own on the strategically vital Horn of Africa. These are just a few destabilizing actions taken by the CCP. They speak nothing of the CCPs Belt and Road debt trap diplomacy, it's illegal harvesting of personal data and intellectual property, it's ongoing human rights abuses, and its advanced espionage efforts, the latter of which came into full focus for all Americans last week when the Biden administration allowed a CCP spy balloon to traverse some of our nation's most sensitive military sites. Make no mistake, that balloon was intentionally lost as a calculated show of force. 44:15 Dr. Melanie W. Sisson: Since 1979, the United States has adopted a constellation of official positions, together known as the One China policy, that allow us to acknowledge but not to accept China's perspective that there is one China and that Taiwan is part of China. Under the One China policy, the United States has developed robust unofficial relations with the government and people of Taiwan consistent with our interest in preserving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. US policy is guided by an interest in ensuring cross-strait disputes are resolved peacefully and in a manner that reflects the will of Taiwan's people. This has required the United States to deter Taiwan from declaring independence, and also to deter the CCP from attempting unification by force. The 40 year success of the strategy of dual deterrence rests upon the unwillingness of the United States to provide either an unconditional commitment to Taipei that it will come to its defense militarily, or an unconditional commitment to Beijing that we will not. The U.S. national security interest in the status of Taiwan remains that the CCP and the people of Taiwan resolve the island's political status peacefully. Dual deterrence therefore remains U.S. strategy, reinforced by U.S. declaratory policy which is to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. 45:28 Dr. Melanie W. Sisson: The modernization of the PLA has changed the regional military balance and significantly enough that the United States no longer can be confident that we would decisively defeat every type of PLA use of force in the Taiwan Strait. This fact, however, does not necessitate that the US abandon the strategy of dual deterrence and it doesn't mean that the United States should seek to reconstitute its prior degree of dominance. Posturing the U.S. military to convince the CCP that the PLA could not succeed in any and every contingency over Taiwan is infeasible in the near term and likely beyond. The PLA is advances are considerable and ongoing, geography works in its favor, and history demonstrates that it's far easier to arrive at an overconfident assessment of relative capability than it is to arrive at an accurate one. Attempting to demonstrate superiority for all contingencies would require a commitment of forces that would inhibit the United States from behaving like the global power that it is with global interests to which its military must also attend. This posture, moreover, is not necessary for dual deterrence to extend its 40 year record of success. We can instead encourage the government of Taiwan to adopt a defense concept that forces the PLA into sub-optimal strategies and increases the battle damage Beijing would have to anticipate and accept. 46:45 Dr. Melanie W. Sisson: U.S. military superiority in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean allows us to threaten the maritime shipping upon which China depends for access to energy, global markets, and supply chains. The inevitable damage a use of force would cause to the global economy and the imposition of sanctions and restricted access to critical inputs needed to sustain China's economic development and the quality of life of its people, moreover, would certainly compound China's losses. 1:04:50 Adm. Harry B. Harris: We're going to share the crown jewel of America's military technology, the nuclear submarine and the nuclear reactors, with another country and that's Australia. We have not done that with any other country, except for the UK, back in the late 50s, and into the 60s. So here we have the two countries with with that capability, the United States and the UK, and we're going to share that with Australia. It's significant. But it's only going to going to be significant over the long term if we follow through. So it's a decade long process. You know, some people the CNO, Chief of Naval Operations, has said it could be 30 years before we see an Australian nuclear submarine underway in the Indian Ocean. I said that if we put our hearts and minds to it, and our resources to it, and by ours, I mean the United States', the UK's and Australia's, we can do this faster than that. I mean we put a man on the moon and eight years, and we developed a COVID vaccine in one year. We can do this, but we're going to have to put our shoulders to the task for Australia, which has a tremendous military. For them to have the long reach of a nuclear submarine force would be dramatic. It would help us dramatically. It would change the balance of power in the Indian Ocean, and it will make Australia a Bluewater navy. They are our key ally in that part of the world and I'm all for it. 1:32:05 Adm. Harry B. Harris: I think this issue of strategic clarity versus strategic ambiguity is critical, and we have been well served, I'll be the first to say that, by the policy of strategic ambiguity with Taiwan over the past 44 years, but I think the time for ambiguity is over. I think we have to be as clear about our intent with regard to what would happen if the PRC invades Taiwan as the PRC is clear in its intent that it's ultimately going to seize Taiwan if need. 1:41:25 Adm. Harry B. Harris: I used to talk about during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, almost every branch of the U.S. government understood that the Soviet Union was the threat. You know, I used to joke even a park ranger, Smokey Bear, would tell you that the Soviets were the bad guys. We didn't have that comprehensive unified view of the PRC. You know, State Department looked at as in negotiation, DOD look at it as a military operation, Commerce looked at it as a trading partner, and Treasury looked at it as a lender. So we didn't have this unified view across the government. But I think now we are getting to that unified view and I think the Congress has done a lot to get us in that position. 1:49:45 Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): We have the capability to block the transmission of information from the balloon back to China, don't we? Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr.: We do. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): And in this type of an environment do you think it's probably likely that we did that? Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr.: I would only guess, but I think General van Herk said that -- Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): Well you can't see any reason why we wouldn't do that, right? March 14, 2014 House Foreign Affairs Committee Witnesses: Kin Moy, [Former] Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State Clips 7:20 [Former] Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY): Taiwan is a flourishing multiparty democracy of over 20 million people with a vibrant free market economy. It is a leading trade partner of the United States alongside much bigger countries like Brazil and India. Over the past 60 years, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship has undergone dramatic changes, but Taiwan's development into a robust and lively democracy underpins the strong U.S.-Taiwan friendship we enjoy today. 14:00 Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA): I think that it's important that we provide Taiwan the tools to defend itself, but Taiwan needs to act as well. Taiwan spends less than $11 billion on its defense, less than 1/5 per capita what we in America do, and God blessed us with the Pacific Ocean separating us from China. Taiwan has only the Taiwan Strait. On a percentage of GDP basis, Taiwan spends roughly half what we do. So we should be willing to sell them the tools and they should be willing to spend the money to buy those tools. 1:11:50 Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): I think Chris Smith raised the issue of a One China policy. Does it not bother you that that exists, that there are statements that people have made, high level officials, that said they they agreed on one China policy? Does the administration not view that as a problem? Kin Moy: Our one China policy is one that has existed for several decades now. Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): Okay. Well, I take that as a no, but let me follow up with what Jerry Connolly said. So you haven't sold submarines yet, you don't take Beijing into account. People around the world watch us. Words and actions have consequences. Would you agree that y'all would be okay with a one Russia policy when it comes to Crimea and the Ukraine? Is that akin to the same kind of ideology? Kin Moy: Well, I can't speak to those issues. But again, we are obligated to provide those defense materials and services to Taiwan and we have been through several administrations, I think very vigilant in terms of providing that. May 15, 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations Harry Harding, Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University, 1995-2009 Clips 1:46:42 Richard N. Haass: The bottom line is China is not yet a military competitor, much less a military peer. Interestingly, I think Chinese leaders understand this. And they understand just how much their country requires decades of external stability so that they can continue to focus their energies and their attention on economic growth and political evolution. China is an emerging country, but in no way is it a revolutionary threat to world order as we know it. 1:47:20 Richard N. Haass: We alone cannot bring about a successful us Chinese relationship. What the Chinese do and say will count just as much. They will need to begin to exercise restraint and patience on Taiwan. There can be no shortcuts, no use of force. We, at the same time, must meet our obligations to assist Taiwan with its defense. We can also help by discouraging statements and actions by Taiwan's leaders that would be viewed as provocative or worse. 2:03:47 Harry Harding: Now with the support and encouragement of the United States, China has now become a member of virtually all the international regimes for which it is qualified. And therefore the process of integration is basically over, not entirely, but it's largely completed. And so the issue, as Bob Zoellick rightly suggested, is no longer securing China's membership, but encouraging it to be something more, what he called a "responsible stakeholder." So this means not only honoring the rules and norms of the system, but also enforcing them when others violate them, and assisting those who wish to join the system but who lack the capacity to do so. It means, in other words, not simply passive membership, but active participation. It means accepting the burdens and responsibilities of being a major power with a stake in international peace and stability, rather than simply being a free rider on the efforts of others. Now, China's reacted to the concept of responsible stakeholding with some ambivalence. On the one hand, it appreciates that the United States is thereby seeking a positive relationship with China. It suggests that we can accept and even welcome the rise of Chinese power and Beijing's growing role in the world. It certainly is seen by the Chinese as preferable to the Bush administration's earlier idea that China would be a strategic competitor of the United States, as was expressed during the campaign of 2000 and in the early months of 2001. However, Beijing also perceives, largely correctly, that America's more accommodative posture as expressed in this concept is conditional. China will be expected to honor international norms and respect international organizations that it did not create and it may sometimes question. And even more worrying from Beijing's perspective is the prospect that it's the United States that is reserving the right to be the judge as to whether Chinese behavior on particular issues is sufficiently responsible or not. August 4, 1999 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: David “Mike” M. Lampton, Founding Director, Chinese Studies Program, Nixon Center Stanley Roth, Assistant Secretary, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State Caspar W. Weinberger, Former Secretary, Department of Defense James Woolsey, Former Director, CIA Clips 9:00 Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): Taiwan security, in my view, flows from its democratic form of government's growing economic, cultural and political contacts with the mainland and, ultimately, the United States' abiding commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. In my opinion, we should concentrate on strengthening those areas rather than spend time pre-authorizing the sales of weapon systems, some of which don't even exist yet. 20:10 Stanley Roth: There are three pillars of the [Clinton] administration's policy. First, the administration's commitment to a One China policy is unchanged. Regardless of the position of the parties, we have not changed our policy. The President has said that both publicly and privately. Second, we believe that the best means to resolve these issues is by direct dialogue between the parties themselves. We have taken every opportunity, including on my own trip to Beijing last week with Ken Lieberthal from the NSC, to urge the PRC to continue this dialogue. It strikes us that it's precisely when times are difficult that you need to dialogue, and to cancel it because of disagreements would be a mistake. China has not yet indicated whether or not these talks will continue in the Fall, as had been previously anticipated, but they put out a lot of hints suggesting that it wouldn't take place, and we are urging them to continue with this dialogue. Third point that is integral to our position. We have stressed again, at every opportunity, the importance of a peaceful resolution of this issue and the President has made that absolutely clear, as did Secretary Albright in her meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Tong in Singapore last week, as did Ken Leiberthal and I in our meetings in Beijing. But China can have no doubts about what the United States' position is, with respect to peaceful resolution of this issue. 1:29:15 Caspar Weinberger: So I don't think that we should be hampered by or felt that we are in any way bound by what is said by the communique, nor should we accept the argument that the communique sets the policy of the United States. 1:32:50 Caspar Weinberger: There are two separate states now, with a state-to-state relationship, and that the unification which was before emphasized, they repeated again in the statement of Mr. Koo, the head of their Trans- Strait Negotiating Committee, that the unification might come when China itself, the mainland, changes, but that that has not been the case and it is not now the case. 1:41:15 David “Mike” Lampton: Once both the mainland and Taiwan are in the WTO, each will have obligations to conduct its economic relations with the other according to international norms and in more efficient ways than now possible. 1:45:20 James Woolsey: The disestablishment of large, state-owned enterprises in China over the long run will bring some economic freedoms, I believe, that will quite possibly help change China and Chinese society and make it more conducive over time to political freedoms as well. But in the short run, the unemployment from the disestablishment of those enterprises can lead to substantial instability. February 7, 1996 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs Witness: Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State Clips 16:45 Winston Lord: The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 forms the basis of US policy regarding the security of Taiwan. Its premise is that an adequate defense in Taiwan is conducive to maintaining peace and security while differences remain between Taiwan and the PRC. I'm going to quote a few sections here because this is a very important statement of our policy. Section two B states, "It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area, and of grave concern to the United States. To provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character, and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security or the socioeconomic system of the people on Taiwan." Section three of the TRA also provides that the "United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self defense capability." 18:00 Winston Lord: The key elements of the US policy toward the Taiwan question are expressed in the three joint communiques with the PRC as follows. The United States recognizes the government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China. The US acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan as part of China. In 1982, the US assured the PRC that it has no intention of pursuing a policy of two Chinas, or one China, one Taiwan. Within this context, the people the US will maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. The US has consistently held that the resolution of the Taiwan issue is a matter to be worked out peacefully by the Chinese themselves. A sole and abiding concern is that any resolution be peaceful. 19:30 Winston Lord: The U.S. government made reciprocal statements concerning our intentions with respect to arms sales to Taiwan, that we did not intend to increase the quantity or quality of arms supplied, and in fact intended gradually to reduce the sales. At the time the joint communique was signed, we made it clear to all parties concerned that our tensions were premised on the PRC's continued adherence to a policy of striving for peaceful reunification with Taiwan. 21:30 Winston Lord: The basic inventory of equipment which Taiwan has or will have in its possession will, in our view, be sufficient to deter any major military action against Taiwan. While arms sales policy aims to enhance the self defense capability of Taiwan, it also seeks to reinforce stability in the region. We will not provide Taiwan with capabilities that might provoke an arms race with the PRC or other countries in the region. 21:55 Winston Lord: Decisions on the release of arms made without proper consideration of the long term impact. both on the situation in the Taiwan Strait and on the region as a whole, would be dangerous and irresponsible. If armed conflict were actually breakout in the Taiwan Strait, the impact on Taiwan, the PRC, and indeed the region, would be extremely serious. The peaceful, stable environment that has prevailed in the Taiwan Strait since the establishment of our current policy in 1979 has promoted progress and prosperity on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The benefits to Taiwan and the PRC have been obvious and I outline these in my statement. All of these achievements would be immediately put at risk in the event of conflict in the Strait. Conflict would also be costly to the United States and to our friends and allies in the region. Any confrontation between the PRC and Taiwan, however limited in scale or scope, would destabilize the military balance in East Asia and constrict the commerce and shipping, which is the economic lifeblood of the region. It would force other countries in the region to reevaluate their own defense policies, possibly fueling an arms race with unforeseeable consequences. It would seriously affect the tens of thousands of Americans who live and work in Taiwan and the PRC. Relations between the US and the PRC would suffer damage regardless of the specific action chosen by the President, in consultation with Congress. For all these reasons, we are firmly determined to maintain a balanced policy, which is best designed to avoid conflict in the area. Music Presented in This Episode by

CD271: RESTRICTing TikTok

9 april 2023 | 115 min

TikTok might be banned from the United States. In this episode, hear testimony from TikTok’s CEO and judge for yourself if you think the arrangement that TikTok has negotiated with the U.S. government is enough to ensure that the Chinese government will not have the ability to manipulate the app or acquire your data. We also take a detailed look at the bill that would ban TikTok (by granting vast new authorities to the government) and we examine the big picture arena in which TikTok and the RESTRICT Act are merely sideshows. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Shou Chew Katie Canales and Sarah Jackson. Mar 22, 2023. Insider. Monica Aggarwal. March 23, 2023. International Business Times. Chinese Influence Over TikTok Senator Marco Rubio [@SenMarcoRubio]. Mar 29, 2023. Twitter. Forced Sale Chang Che. Mar 23, 2023. The New York Times. Facebook Emma Roth. Nov 28, 2022. The Verge. Taylor Lorenz and Drew Harwell. Mar 30, 2022. The Washington Post. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. How the U.S. Has Governed the World Trade System U.S. Government-Corporate Spy Partnerships May 15, 2007. Frontline. Iran Nuclear Deal Nov 23, 2021. BBC News. Venezuela Agence France Presse. Apr 17, 2020. Barron’s. Russia-Ukraine Adam Plowright. Feb 12, 2023. Barron’s. China’s Trade and Currency Agreements Jan van der Made. March 31, 2023. RFI. Jamie Seidel. Mar 31, 2023. news.com.au. Agence France Presse. Mar 29, 2023. Barron’s. Peter A. Petri and Michael Plummer. Nov 16, 2020. Brookings. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative Brad Lendon. Apr 4, 2023. CNN. Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. Jack Reed. May 28, 2020. War on the Rocks. Chinese Economy Kristalina Georgieva. Mar 26, 2023. International Monetary Fund. Chinese Authoritarianism James Doubek. Mar 11, 2018. NPR. Jeremy Page and Chun Han Wong. Oct 25, 2017. The Wall Street Journal. Bills Audio Sources March 30, 2023 Fox News Clips Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Brazil - in our hemisphere, largest country in the western hemisphere south of us - cut a trade deal with China. They’re going to, from now on, trade in their own currencies, get right around the dollar. They’re creating a secondary economy in the world totally independent of the United States. We won’t have to talk about sanctions in 5 years because there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won’t have the ability to sanction them. March 29, 2023 Twitter March 23, 2023 Fox News Clips Mark Warner: One of the things I always make clear is my beef is with the Communist Party of China. My beef is with Xi Jinping, the Communist Party leader, who treats his own people awfully... and I do think you need to make that distinction. Not about Chinese people. But to deny the authoritarian regime and their record is not based on a factual analysis. March 23, 2023 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Witness: Shou Chew, CEO, TikTok Clips 7:15 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): TikTok collects nearly every data point imaginable, from people's location, to what they type and copy, who they talk to, biometric data, and more. Even if they've never been on Tik Tok, your trackers are embedded in sites across the web. Tik Tok surveys us all, and the Chinese Communist Party is able to use this as a tool to manipulate America as a whole. We do not trust Tik Tok will ever embrace American values; values for freedom, human rights, and innovation. Tik Tok has repeatedly chosen the path for more control, more surveillance, and more manipulation. Your platform should be banned. 15:25 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): National security experts are sounding the alarm, warning that the Chinese Communist government could require TikTok to compromise device security, maliciously access American user data, promote pro-Communist propaganda, and undermine American interests. Disinformation campaigns could be launched by the by the Chinese Communist government through TikTok, which has already become rife with misinformation and disinformation, illegal activities, and hate speech. A recent report found that 20% of TikTok search results on prominent news topics contain misinformation. 20:35 Shou Chew: Let me start by addressing a few misconceptions about ByteDance, of which we are a subsidiary. ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government. It is a private company. 60% of the company is owned by global institutional investors, 20% is owned by the founder, and 20% owned by employees around the world. ByteDance has five board members, three of them are American. Now TikTok itself is not available in mainland China. We're headquartered in Los Angeles and in Singapore, and we have 7000 employees in the US today. 21:50 Shou Chew: The bottom line is this: American data stored on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel. We call this initiative Project Texas. That's where Oracle is headquartered. Today, U.S. TikTok data is stored by default in Oracle's service. Only vetted personnel operating in a new company called TikTok U.S. Data Security can control access to this data. Now, additionally, we have plans for this company to report to an independent American board with strong security credentials. Now, there's still some work to do. We have legacy U.S. data sitting in our servers in Virginia and in Singapore. We're deleting those and we expect that to be completed this year. When that is done, all protected U.S. data will be under the protection of US law and under the control of the U.S.-led security team. This eliminates the concern that some of you have shared with me that TikTok user data can be subject to Chinese law. 22:55 Shou Chew: We also provide unprecedented transparency and security for the source code for the TikTok app and recommendation engine. Third party validators like Oracle and others will review and validate our source code and algorithms. This will help ensure the integrity of the code that powers what Americans see on our app. We will further provide access to researchers, which helps them study and monitor our content ecosystem. Now we believe we are the only company that offers this level of transparency. 23:35 Shou Chew: The potential security, privacy, [and] content manipulation concerns raised about TikTok are really not unique to us. The same issues apply to other companies. We believe what's needed are clear, transparent rules that apply broadly to all tech companies. Ownership is not at the core of addressing these concerns. 24:20 Shou Chew: TikTok will remain a place for free expression and will not be manipulated by any government. 27:30 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Have any moderation tools been used to remove content on TikTok associated with the Uyghur genocide? Yes or no? Shou Chew: We do not remove that kind of content. Tik Tok is a place for freedom of expression. Chairwoman, just like I said, if you use our app, you can go on it and you will see a lot of users around the world expressing content on that topic and many others. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Thank you. What about the massacre in Tiananmen Square? Yes or no? Shou Chew: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): The massacre in Tiananmen Square. Shou Chew: That kind of content is available on our platform. You can go and search it. 28:05 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): I will remind you that making false or misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime. 28:15 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Can you say with 100% certainty that ByteDance or the CCP cannot use your company or its divisions to heat content to promote pro-CCP messages for an act of aggression against Taiwan. Shou Chew: We do not promote or remove content at the request of the Chinese government. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): The question is, are you 100% certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages? Shou Chew: It is our commitment to this committee and all users that we will keep this free from any manipulation by any government. 39:10 Shou Chew: Congressman, since I've been CEO of this company I've not had any discussions with Chinese government officials. 43:55 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): The Chinese government has that data. How can you promise that that will move into the United States of America and be protected here? Shou Chew: Congresswoman, I have seen no evidence that the Chinese government has access to that data. They have never asked us; we have not provided it. I've asked that -- Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Well, you know what, I find that actually preposterous. Shou Chew: I have looked and I have seen no evidence of this happening. And in order to assure everybody here and all our users, our commitment is to move the data into the United States to be stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel. So the risk will be similar to any government going to an American company asking for data. 44:40 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Well I'm one that doesn't believe that there is really a private sector in China. 54:55 Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): So I want to know from you, and I will give you time to answer this. You have current controls, but the current controls are not working to keep dosinformation mainly from young people, but from Americans in general. What more is is TikTok doing to try to strengthen its review to keep disinformation from coming across to people. Shou Chew: Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The dangerous misinformation that you mentioned is not allowed on our platform. It violates the -- Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): I'm sorry to report it is on your platform, though. Shou Chew: Congresswoman, I don't think I can sit here and say that we are perfect in doing this. We do work very hard. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): How can you make yourself more perfect? I don't want you to say it's not there or you apologize. What can you do to limit it as much as possible, more than what you're doing now? Shou Chew: We invest a significant amount in our content moderation work. I shared that number in my written testimony -- Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): I know you're investing, but what steps are you taking to improve the AI, or whatever else you're doing, to limit this content? Shou Chew: For example, if you search for certain search terms, we do direct you on TikTok to safety resources. That's one of the things we have done. We will continue to invest in this I recognize and fully aligned with you that this is a problem that faces our industry that we need to really invest and address this. I'm very in alignment. 1:07:05 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Does TikTok share user information from companies...from parent companies...from affiliated...or send user information to...overseas? Shou Chew: In the past, yes, for interoperability purposes. Now, after Project Texas, all protected U.S. data will be stored here with the access controlled by a special team of U.S. personnel. 1:07:55 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): I do want a quote from employees that you had, and here's the quote, "everything is seen in China" is really what they said. People who were in touch with the sensitive data were saying that. How do you respond to that? Shou Chew: I disagree with that statement. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Well, I know you disagree with that statement. But my point is, how does that happen that employees of the company are saying that in fact, that's not true. Shou Chew: I cannot speak to, I don't know who this person is, so I cannot speak to what the person has or has not said. What I can say is, you know, based on my position in this company, and the responsibility that I have, that statement is just not true. 1:11:00 Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Yes or no, ByteDance is required to have a member of the Chinese government on its board with veto power, is that correct? Shou Chew: No, that is not correct. ByteDance owns some Chinese businesses and you're talking about this very special subsidiary that is for Chinese business license -- Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Mr. Chew, I'm gonna have to move on. 1:19:20 Shou Chew: First, anything that is violated and harmful, we remove. What I meant to say were [sic] content that is not inherently inherently harmful, like some of the extreme fitness videos about people running 100 miles, is not inherently harmful, but if we show them too much, the experts are telling us that we should disperse them more and make sure that they're not seen too regularly, especially by younger users. 1:33:20 Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): Do you realize that making false and misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime? Shou Chew: Yes, I do. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): Okay. 1:39:35 Shou Chew: We do want to be leading in terms of safety of our users, particularly for teenagers. We were the first to launch a 60 minute watch limit. Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD): And let's talk about the 60 Minute -- Shou Chew: And I'm very glad to see others in our industry follow. For many of the recommendations, we will study them very seriously. We actually have a series of features. Like for example, if you're under 16, you cannot use a direct messaging feature, because we know we want to protect those younger users. If you're under 16, you cannot go viral by default. If you're under 18, you cannot go live. 1:48:20 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Will you continue to get information from these third parties on its users health? Shou Chew: Get information? We do not get any user health information from third parties. 1:56:20 Shou Chew: The American data has always been stored in Virginia and Singapore in the past. And access of this is on an as required basis by engineers globally — Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): As required by who? Shou Chew: By engineers, for business purposes -- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): Engineers? ByteDance? The Communist Party? Shou Chew: No, no. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): Why? How can you say that if they have access -- Shou Chew: This is a business. This is a private business, and like many other businesses, many other American companies, we rely on the global workforce. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): So the global workforce, that includes ByteDance, which is connected directly to the Chinese Communist Party. Shou Chew: That is a mischaracterization that we disagree with. Now, in the future -- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): That's not what we can disagree with. That's a fact. Shou Chew: It's not, unfortunately. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): The CEO of ByteDance and your relationship to them. Shou Chew: Congressman, respectfully, in my opening statement, I said this is a private company, it's owned 60% by global investors. Three out of the five board members on ByteDance are Americans. This is a private business Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): You report directly to ByteDance, with a CEO who is a member of Communist Party. Let me move on — Shou Chew: He is not. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-SC): -- I think we got the answer. 2:07:20 Shou Chew: We do not collect body, face, or voice data to identify our users. We do not -- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): You don't? Shou Chew: No, the only face data that you get that we collect is when you use the filters to have sunglasses on your face. We need to know where your eyes are -- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Why do you need to know what the eyes are if you're not seeing if they're dilated? Shou Chew: -- and that data is stored on your local device and deleted after use if you use it for facial. Again, we do not collect body, face, or voice data to identify users. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): I find that hard to believe. 2:30:20 Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL): When the Chinese Communist government bought a share ByteDance, it's been described as the Chinese Communist Government's way of quieter form of control, and that companies have little choice in selling a stake to the government if they want to stay in business, and what I'd like to know is when the Chinese Communist government moved to buy shares of ByteDance, were you informed beforehand, yes or no? Shou Chew: No, Congressman, ByteDance -- Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL): Were you or anyone with TikTok asked for your opinion about the sale of shares of ByteDance to the Chinese Communist government? Yes or no? Shou Chew: It just, this hasn't happened. 2:34:55 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Mr. Chew, have any prior versions of TikTok's app collected precise GPS information from us users, yes or no? Shou Chew: Yes. From back in 2020, about three years ago. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Are there currently TikTok users who still hold old versions of the app that collect precise GPS information from U.S. users? Yes or no? Shou Chew: That could be, but that's a small percentage. 2:36:05 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Has TikTok, at any time, sold precise GPS information collected from U.S. users? Yes or no? Shou Chew: We do not sell data to data brokers if that's the question. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): And you've never done that? Shou Chew: I do not believe so. 2:37:15 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Has TikTok, at any time, provided the Chinese government with either precise GPS information collected from U.S. users or inferences made from that data? Shou Chew: That I can give you a straight answer: no. 2:37:30 Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Mr. Chew, even in Congress, even if Congress were to ban Tiktok, I'm concerned that China or others would still have access to US consumer data by purchasing it through data brokers. Will you commit not to sell any of TikTok's data to data brokers now or in the future? Shou Chew: We do not do that. We do not sell data to data brokers now. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Will you commit to not do it in the future? Shou Chew: This is -- certain members of industry who do this. I think this has to be broad legislation to help us, the whole industry, address this problem. 3:13:15 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): A March 21, Forbes article revealed how troves of personal data of Indian citizens who once used TikTok remained widely accessible to employees at the company and its Beijing based parent ByteDance. A current TikTok employee told Forbes that nearly anyone with basic access to company tools, including employees in China, can easily look up the closest contacts and other sensitive information about any user. This current TikTok employee also said, "If you want to start a movement, if you want to divide people, if you want to do any of the operation to influence the public on the app, you can just use that information to target those groups." Mr. Chew, why would a current TikTok employee say this if it wasn't true? Shou Chew: This is a recent article, I have asked my team to look into it. As far as I know there is, we have rigorous data access protocols. There's really no such thing where anybody can get access to tools. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): Alright. Shou Chew: So I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of that. 3:18:20 Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL): So Mr. Chew, would TikTok be prepared to divest from ByteDance and Chinese Communist Party ties if the Department of Treasury instructed you all to do so? Shou Chew: Congressman, I said in my opening statement, I think we need to address the problem of privacy. I agree with you. I don't think ownership is the issue here, with a lot of respect. American social companies don't have a good track record with data privacy and user security. I mean, look at Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, just one example. So I do think that you know, it is not about the ownership, it is a lot about making sure we have Project Texas, making sure that we're protecting and firewalling U.S. user data from unwanted foreign access, giving third parties to come in to have a look at this and making sure that everybody is comfortable. We're giving transparency and third party monitoring and that's what we're doing for Project Texas. 4:24:15 Shou Chew: Congressman, we have only one process of removing content on our platform and the process is done by our content moderation team headquartered in Ireland and the US, and we will only remove content that violates our guidelines, and that's something that we audit, or if there's a valid legal order. 4:26:05 Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): Here are my concerns with TikTok. Your claims are hard to believe. It's no secret to us that TikTok is still under the thumb of CCP influence and, let's be honest, TikTok is indoctrinating our children with divisive, woke, and pro-CCP propaganda. 4:27:15 Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX): Should we plan to have a committee hearing every time, every day, every time there's something brought up so that we can limit the content on TikTok? Should Congress plan to do that Mr. Chew? Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Almost 30% of the videos that came up contained misinformation...a high level of misinformation...misinformation...disinformation...misleading information...harmful misinformation...misinformation...misinformation. Why are these dangerous videos falling through the cracks of your company's efforts to enforce its own community guidelines and remove harmful misinformation? 4:30:20 Shou Chew: Yes, any dangerous misinformation is...we partner with third party experts to be able to identify and help us with subject domain expertise. And with their expertise that we recognize, we rely on those to develop policies to recognize and remove could be -- Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Well, your efforts I have failed, and they're dangerous. 4:33:10 Shou Chew: I can get back to you on the specifics, but dangerous misinformation is moderated regardless of language. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): Not to the degree that it needs to be. 4:58:40 Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX): Are keystroke patterns and rhythms part of TikTok gathering the data that is gathered by TikTok? Shou Chew: If you're talking, Congressman, specifically about keystrokes, you know, we do not. We do not engage in keystroke logging to monitor what the users say. It's to identify bots for security purposes, and this is a standard industry practice. 5:24:30 Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Here's the main point of concern: China's 2017 National Intelligence law states very clearly, that, "any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work in accordance with the law and maintain the secrecy of all knowledge of state intelligence work." In other words, ByteDance, and also your TikTok employees that live in China, they must cooperate with Chinese intelligence whenever they are called upon. And if they are called upon, they're bound to secrecy. That would include you. So Mr. Chew, if the CCP tells ByteDance to turn over all data that TikTok has collected inside the US, even within Project Texas, do they have to do so according to Chinese law? Shou Chew: Congressman, first, I'm Singaporean. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): That's fine. But there are employees of yours and ByteDance's in China. Shou Chew: We understand this concern. In my opening statement, we said we hear these concerns, we didn't try to avoid them or you know, trivialize them, we built something where we take the data and put it out of reach. This is what we did, we put it out of reach. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): But they own you. Shou Chew: No, we put it out of reach by -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): ByteDance owns Tiktok and the CCP owns ByteDance, because the CCP owns everybody in China. So by law, they can make them do whatever they want. And they say that by law, you can't tell anyone about it. So they can make you hand over that data is that correct? Shou Chew: Data is stored here in American soil, by an American company overseen by American -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Leaked audio from 80 internal TikTok meeting shows that US user data has been repeatedly accessed from China, when you said it hasn't been. And here's the other thing, following back on my colleagues line of questioning. In your own privacy policy, it says that you may share information within your so called "Corporate Group" is ByteDance part of that corporate group? Shou Chew: If you're talking about the share of the entity with the share, like I shared with the previous -- Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Is ByteDance part of the corporate group? Shou Chew: ByteDance, as a holding company, is part of the corporate group, yes. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Part of the corporate group. Okay, so your own privacy policy says you have to share data with ByteDance. And if the CCP says, Hey ByteDance, you're going to do what we say and you can't tell anyone about it because by law, according to that 2017 National Intelligence law, they have to do it. That's our concern. 5:26:50 Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): Okay, so my last point is this, I want to say this to all the teenagers out there, and the TikTok influencers who think we're just old and out of touch and don't know what we're talking about, trying to take away your favorite app. You may not care that your data is being accessed now, but it will be one day when you do care about it. And here's the real problem: with data comes power. They can choose what you see and how you see it. They can make you believe things that are not true. They can encourage you to engage in behavior that will destroy your life. Even if it is not happening yet, it could in the future. The long term goal of the Chinese Communist Party is the demise of the American power, and that starts with our youth. At any moment, they could demand that all of TikTok's data be used to design an AI algorithm with the sole purpose of promoting Chinese interests and destroying our society from within. You want to know why Democrats and Republicans have come together on this? That's why we are so concerned. 2:07:55 Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): How do you determine what age they are then? Shou Chew: We rely on age-gating as our key age assur-- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Age...? Shou Chew: -gating, which is when you ask the user what age they are. We have also developed some tools where we look at their public profile to go through the videos that they post to see whether-- Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Well that's creepy. Tell me more about that. Shou Chew: It's public. So if you post a video [and] you choose that video to go public, that's how you get people to see your video. We look at those to see if it matches up the age that you told. February 7, 2023 House Committee on Financial Services Witnesses: Former Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness, National Security Council and National Economic Council Clips Rep. David Scott (D-GA): I am deeply concerned with the fast growing possibility of a China-led world order. That includes the Chinese military controlling the South Pacific trade route because the South Pacific trade war is now the lifeline of the entire global economy. Peter E. Harrell: I think it's important that we all, as we think about China policy, we all recognize that China, though a serious competitor, and by far our most significant economic competitor, is not 10 feet tall. It's not some sort of mythical beast that we cannot out-compete. I think you've highlighted a couple of the reasons, Congresswoman, why that's the case. They do have high levels of debt. They also have serious long term demographic problems, coming to having a shrinking working age population. Rep. William Timmins (R-SC): The question is what are we going to do to get China to reform their behavior and compete in the global economy and be good actors in the global economy. That's the question. February 1, 2023 Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Witnesses: Samm Sacks, Senior Fellow, New America & Senior Fellow, Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center Clips Samm Sacks: I mean, to be honest, I think that the grading profiles based on aggregate data is primarily a counterintelligence concern for individuals with national security clearances and the military or access to sensitive information for your average American what that what the impact would probably be more in terms of would that population or individual preference information could that be used to push information that would make say, a spear phishing attack more appealing it might be more likely that someone would would be a would click on a link because it appealed to them based on information that was collected? And so I would say it's, I would look at it from that angle. But why highlighted in my testimony, the more sort of far reaching impact is on economic competitiveness, which is a distinct issue, right? It's on Chinese firms who are able to access diverse international data sets beyond China. What that allows them to do is train AI models that could be more competitive in markets outside of China, where they're competing head to head with US firms. So I would bucket the risk. You have national security issues. You also have missed it targeted misinformation that could be used from that, as well as economic competitiveness between us and Chinese firms. And it's important to sort of be clear about those distinct buckets of risk. Samm Sacks: I guess I'll start with the TikTok issue. But you know, I think that there are two important issues on the table. One is data security, who has access to what, and the other is the potential to push misinformation online, the recommendation algorithm. My understanding is that there is a national security agreement on the table. You know, from a data security standpoint, if Oracle has the data in the cloud, there are multiple third party auditors and an oversight board that reports to CFIUS, I think that that would be pretty much locked down. The question around what kind of information the recommendation system pushes forward is an important one. And that also under this agreement -- it's called Project Texas and I've published about it just a week or so ago -- would be again, subject to verification, source code reviewed, essentially vetted by CFIUS. I think it's important that the public understand what that national security agreement would look like and then have a debate. Is this enough to address those concerns? And to what extent would other social media companies also need to meet them? Music Presented in This Episode by

CD270: The Twitter Files

27 mars 2023 | 86 min

The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from censoring speech. In this episode, drawing from internal Twitter documents known as “the Twitter files” and Congressional testimony from tech executives, former Twitter employees, and journalists, we examine the shocking formal system of censorship in which government employees are using their influence over private companies to indirectly censor speech in a way that they are clearly prohibited from doing directly. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Twitter Files Matt Taibbi. Jan 4, 2023. Racket News. Matt Taibbi Matt Taibbi. Mar 12, 2023. Racket News. Feb 13, 2023. The Joe Rogan Experience. Hunter Biden Laptop Story [tweet]. Michael Shellenberger [@ShellenbergerMD]. Dec 19, 2022. Twitter. Influence, Propaganda, and Censorship Alex Berenson. Jan 9, 2023. Unreported Truths. Lee Fang. December 20, 2022. The Intercept. Aug 24, 2022. The Washington Post. Audio Sources March 9, 2023 House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Witnesses: Matt Taibbi, Journalist Michael Shellenberger, Author, Co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition Clips 17:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): In the run up to the 2020 Presidential election, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, in his deposition in Missouri versus Biden, said that he repeatedly, repeatedly, informed Twitter and other social media platforms of the likelihood of a hack and leak operation in the run up to that Presidential election. He did it even though there was no evidence. In fact, he said in his deposition that we hadn't seen anything, no intrusions, no hack, yet he repeatedly told them something was common. Yoel Ross, Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter, testified that he had had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other folks regarding election security. During these weekly meetings, federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected a hack and leak operation. The expectations of a hack and leak operation were discussed throughout 2020. And he was told they would occur in a period shortly before the 2020 Presidential election, likely in October. And finally, he said "I also learned in these meetings, that there were rumors that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden." So what did the government tell him? A hack and leak operation was coming. How often did the government tell him this? Repeatedly for a year. When did the government say it was going to happen? October of 2020. And who did the government say it would involve? Hunter Biden. 19:35 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): How did they know? Maybe it's because they had the laptop and they had had it for a year. 21:50 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Finally, as if on cue, five days later on October 19, 51 former intel[ligence] officials signed a letter with a now famous sentence "the Biden laptop story has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Something that was absolutely false. 25:25 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): And the Republicans have brought in two of Elon Musk's public scribes to release cherry-picked, out-of-context emails and screenshots designed to promote his chosen narrative, Elon Musk's chosen narrative, that is now being paroted by the Republicans, because the Republicans think that these witnesses will tell a story that's going to help them out politically. 25:50 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): On Tuesday, the majority released an 18 page report claiming to show that the FTC is quote, "harassing" Twitter -- oh my poor Twitter -- including by seeking information about its interactions with individuals before us today. How did the report reach this conclusion? By showing two single paragraphs from a single demand letter, even though the report itself makes clear that there were numerous demand letters with numerous requests, none of which we've been able to see, that are more demand letters and more requests of Twitter. 28:05 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Mr. Chairman, Americans can see through this. Musk is helping you out politically and you're going out of your way to promote and protect him and to praise him for his work. 28:15 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): This isn't just a matter of what data was given to these so-called journalists before us now. 31:35 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Mr. Chairman, I'm not exaggerating when I say that you have called before you two witnesses who pose a direct threat to people who oppose them. 32:30 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): We know this is because at the first hearing, the Chairman claimed that big government and big tech colluded to shape and mold the narrative and suppress information and censor Americans. This is a false narrative. We're engaging in false narratives here and we are going to tell the truth. 37:35 Michael Shellenberger: I recognize that the law allows Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies to moderate content on their platforms and I support the right of governments to communicate with the public, including to dispute inaccurate information, but government officials have been caught repeatedly pushing social media platforms to censor disfavored users and content. Often these acts of censorship threaten the legal protection social media companies need to exist, Section 230. If government officials are directing or facilitating such censorship, and as one law professor, it raises serious First Amendment questions. It is axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly. 41:50 Matt Taibbi: My name is Matt Taibbi, I've been a reporter for 30 years and a staunch advocate of the First Amendment. Much of that time was spent at Rolling Stone magazine. Ranking Member Plaskett, I'm not a "so-called" journalist. I've won the National Magazine Award, the I.F Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written 10 books, including four New York Times bestsellers. 45:35 Matt Taibbi: Ordinary Americans are not just being reported to Twitter for deamplification or deplatforming, but to firm's like Pay Pal, digital advertisers like Xandr, and crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe. These companies can and do refuse service to law abiding people and businesses whose only crime is falling afoul of a distant, faceless, unaccountable, algorithmic judge. 44:00 Matt Taibbi: Again, Ranking Member Plaskett, I would note that the evidence of Twitter-government relationship includes lists of tens of thousands of names on both the left and right. The people affected include Trump supporters, but also left leaning sites like Consortium and Truthout, the leftist South American channel TeleSUR, the Yellow Vest movement. That, in fact, is a key point of the Twitter files, that it's neither a left nor right issue. 44:40 Matt Taibbi: We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at [the Department of] State, even the CIA. For every government agency scanning Twitter, there were perhaps 20 quasi private entities doing the same thing, including Stanford's Election Integrity Partnership, Newsguard, the Global Disinformation Index, and many others, many taxpayer funded. A focus of this fast growing network, as Mike noted, is making lists of people whose opinions beliefs, associations, or sympathies are deemed misinformation, disinformation or malinformation. That last term is just a euphemism for true but inconvenient. Undeniably, the making of such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism. 1:01:00 Matt Taibbi: So, a great example of this is a report that the Global Engagement Center sent to Twitter and to members of the media and other platforms about what they called "the Pillars of Russian Disinformation." Now, part of this report is what you would call, I think you would call, traditional hardcore intelligence gathering where they made a reasoned, evidence baseed case that certain sites were linked to Russian influence or linked to the Russian government. In addition to that, however, they also said that sites that quote, "generate their own momentum," and have opinions that are in line with those accounts are part of a propaganda ecosystem. Now, this is just another word for guilt by association. And this is the problem with the whole idea of trying to identify which accounts are actually the Internet Research Agency and which ones are just people who follow those accounts or retweeted them. Twitter initially did not find more than a handful of IRA accounts. It wasn't until they got into an argument with the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that they came back with a different answer. 1:06:00 Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Before you became Elon Musk's handpicked journalists, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan's podcast about being spoon fed information. And I quote, "I think that's true of any kind of journalism," and you'll see it behind me here. "I think that's true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you've lost. They have you at that point and you got to get out of that habit. You just can't cross that line." Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan? Yes or no? Yes or no? Matt Taibbi: Yes. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Good. Now, you crossed that line with the Twitter files. Matt Taibbi: No. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Elon Musk -- It's my time, please do not interrupt me. Crowd: [laughter] Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL): Elon Musk spoon fed you his cherry-picked information, which you must have suspected promotes a slanted viewpoint, or at the very least generates another right wing conspiracy theory. 1:11:20 Matt Taibbi: That moment on the Joe Rogan show, I was actually recounting a section from Seymour Hersh's book, Reporter, where he described a scene where the CIA gave him a story and he was very uncomfortable. He said that "I, who had always gotten the secrets, was being handed the secrets." Again, I've done lots of whistleblower stories. There's always a balancing test that you make when you're given material, and you're always balancing newsworthiness versus the motives of your sources. In this case, the newsworthiness clearly outweighed any other considerations. I think everybody else who worked on the project agrees. 1:14:45 Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Richard Stengel, you know who that is? Matt Taibbi: Yes, he's the former, the first head of the Global Engagement Center. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): I want the American people to hear from him for 30 seconds. Richard Stengel: Basically, every country creates their own narrative story. And, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the "chief propagandist" job. We haven't talked about propaganda. Propaganda. I'm not against propaganda. Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population. 1:24:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): December 13, the very first letter that the FTC sends to Twitter after the Twitter files, 11 days after the first Twitter file, there have been five of them come out, the FTC's first demand in that first letter after the Twitter files come out is identify all journalists. I'm quoting "identify all journalists and other members of the media" to whom Twitter worked with. You find that scary, Mr. Taibbi, that you got a federal government agency asking a private company who in the press are you talking with? Matt Taibbi: I do find it scary. I think it's none of the government's business which journalists a private company talks to and why. I think every journalist should be concerned about that. And the absence of interest in that issue by my fellow colleagues in the mainstream media is an indication of how low the business has sunk. There was once a real esprit de corps and camaraderie within Media. Whenever one of us was gone after, we all kind of rose to the challenge and supported -- Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): It used to be, used to be the case. Matt Taibbi: Yeah, that is gone now. 1:28:50 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): How many emails did Mr. Musk give you access to? Michael Shellenberger: I mean, we went through thousands of emails. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Did he give you access to all of the emails for the time period in which? Michael Shellenberger: We never had a single, I never had a single request denied. And not only that, but the amount of files that we were given were so voluminous that there was no way that anybody could have gone through them beforehand. And we never found an instance where there was any evidence that anything had been taken out. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Okay. So you would believe that you have probably millions of emails and documents, right? That's correct, would you say? Michael Shellenberger: I don't know if -- I think the number is less than that. Matt Taibbi: Millions sounds too high. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): Okay. 100,000? Matt Taibbi: That's probably closer. Michael Shellenberger: Probably, yeah. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI): So 100,000 that both of you were seeing. 1:37:10 Matt Taibbi: There were a couple of very telling emails that wepublished. One was by a lawyer named [Sasha Cardiel???], where the company was being so overwhelmed by requests from the FBI and in fact they, they gave each other a sort of digital High Five after one batch, saying "that was a monumental undertaking to clear all of these," but she noted that she believed that the FBI was essentially doing word searches keyed to Twitter's Terms of Service, looking for violations of the Terms of Service, specifically so that they could make recommendations along those lines, which we found interesting. 1:48:15 Michael Shellenberger: And we haven't talked about Facebook, but we now know that we have the White House demanding that Facebook take down factual information and Facebook doing that. 1:48:25 Michael Shellenberger: And with Matt [Taibbi]'s thread this morning we saw the government contractors demanding the same thing of Twitter: accurate information, they said, that needed to be taken down in order to advance a narrative. 1:49:55 Matt Taibbi: You know, in conjunction with our own research, there's a foundation, the Foundation for Freedom Online, which, you know, there's a very telling video that they uncovered where the Director of Stanford's Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) talks about how CISA, the DHS agency, didn't have the capability to do election monitoring, and so that they kind of stepped in to "fill the gaps" legally before that capability could be amped up. And what we see in the Twitter files is that Twitter executives did not distinguish between DHS or CISA and this group EIP, for instance, we would see a communication that said, from CISA, escalated by EIP. So they were essentially identical in the eyes of the company. EIP is, by its own data, and this is in reference to what you brought up, Mr. Congressman, according to their own data, they significantly targeted more what they call disinformation on the right than on the left, by a factor I think of about ten to one. And I say that as not a Republican at all, it's just the fact of what we're looking at. So yes, we have come to the realization that this bright line that we imagine that exists between, say the FBI or the DHS, or the GEC and these private companies is illusory and that what's more important is this constellation of kind of quasi private organizations that do this work. 1:52:10 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): What was the first time that Mr. Musk approached you about writing the Twitter files? Matt Taibbi: Again, Congresswoman that would — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I just need a date, sir. Matt Taibbi: But I can't give it to you, unfortunately, because this this is a question of sourcing, and I don't give up... I'm a journalist, I don't reveal my sources. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): It's a question of chronology. Matt Taibbi: No, that's a question of sourcing — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Earlier you said that someone had sent you, through the internet, some message about whether or not you would be interested in some information. Matt Taibbi: Yes. And I refer to that person as a source. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So you're not going to tell us when Musk first approached you? Matt Taibbi: Again, Congresswoman, you're asking me, you're asking a journalist to reveal a source. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You consider Mr. Musk to be the direct source of all this? Matt Taibbi: No, now you're trying to get me to say that he is the source. I just can't answer — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Either he is or he isn't. If you're telling me you can't answer because it's your source, well, then the only logical conclusion is that he is in fact, your source. Matt Taibbi: Well, you're free to conclude that. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Well, sir, I just don't understand. You can't have it both ways. But let's move on because -- Unknown Representative 1: No, he can. He's a journalist. Unknown Representative 2: He can't, because either Musk is the source and he can't talk about it, or Musk is not the source. And if Musk is not the source, then he can discuss [unintelligible] Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): No one has yielded, the gentlelady is out of order, you don't get to speak — Multiple speakers: [Crosstalk] Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The gentlelady is not recognized...[crosstalk]...he has not said that, what he has said is he's not going to reveal his source. And the fact that Democrats are pressuring him to do so is such a violation of the First Amendment. Multiple speakers: [Crosstalk] Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I have not yielded time to anybody. I want to reclaim my time. And I would ask the chairman to give me back some of the time because of the interruption. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you, if you will give me the seconds that I lost. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): We will give you that 10 seconds. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Thank you. Now let's talk about another item. When you responded to the ranking member, you said that you had free license to look at everything but yet you yourself posted on your...I guess it's kind of like a web page...I don't quite understand what Substack is, but what I can say is that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions." What were those conditions? She asked you that question and you said you had none. But you yourself posted that you had conditions? Matt Taibbi: The conditions, as I've explained multiple times -- Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): No sir, you have not explained, you told her in response to her question that you had no conditions. In fact, you used the word licensed, that you were free to look at all of them. All 100,000 emails. Matt Taibbi: The question was posed, was I free to to write about — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, did you have any conditions? Matt Taibbi: The condition was that we publish — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, did you have any conditions? Yes or no? A simple question. Matt Taibbi: Yes. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): All right. Could you tell us what conditions those were? Matt Taibbi: The conditions were an attribution of sources at Twitter and that we break any news on Twitter. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): But you didn't break it on Twitter. Did you send the file that you released today to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: Did I send the...actually I did, yes. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Did you send it to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: The Twitter files thread? Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): That was one of the conditions? Yes or no, sir. Matt Taibbi: The Twitter files thread actually did come out first. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): But sir, you said earlier that you had to attribute all the sources to Twitter first. What you released today, did you send that to Twitter first? Matt Taibbi: No, no, no, I post I posted it on Twitter Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): First. First, sir, or did you give it to the Chairman of the Committee or the staff of the Committee first? Matt Taibbi: Well, that's not breaking the story, that's giving...I did give — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So you gave all the information that you did not give to the Democrats, you gave it to the Republicans first, then you put it on Twitter? Matt Taibbi: Actually, no, the chronology is a little bit confused. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Well then tell us what the chronology was. Matt Taibbi: I believe the thread came out first. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Where? Matt Taibbi: On Twitter Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): On Twitter. So then you afterwards gave it to the Republicans, and not the Democrats? Matt Taibbi: Yes, because I'm submitting it for the record as my statement. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Did you give it to him in advance? Matt Taibbi: I gave it to them today. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You gave it to them today, but you still have not given anything to the Democrats. Well, I'll move on. 1:57:20 Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Now in your discussion, in your answer, you also said that you were invited by a friend, Bari Weiss? Michael Shellenberger: My friend, Bari Weiss. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): So this friend works for Twitter, or what is her....? Matt Taibbi: She's a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Sir, I didn't ask you a question. I'm now asking Mr. Shellenberger a question. Michael Shellenberger: Yes, ma'am, Bari Weiss is a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): I'm sorry, sir? Michael Shellenberger: She's a journalist. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): She's a journalist. So you work in concert with her? Michael Shellenberger: Yeah. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): Do you know when she first was contacted by Mr. Musk? Michael Shellenberger: I don't know. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX): You don't know. So you're in this as a threesome? 2:00:10 Michael Shellenberger: Reading through the whole sweep of events, I do not know the extent to which the influence operation aimed at "pre-bunking" the Hunter Biden laptop was coordinated. I don't know who all was involved. But what we saw was, you saw Aspen and Stanford, many months before then, saying don't cover the material in the hack and leak without emphasizing the fact that it could be disinformation. Okay, so they're priming journalists to not cover a future hack and leak in a way that journalists have long been trained to in the tradition of the Pentagon Papers, made famous by the Steven Spielberg movie. They were saying [to] cover the fact that it probably came from the Russians. Then you have the former General Counsel to the FBI, Jim Baker, and the former Deputy Chief of Staff to the FBI, both arriving at Twitter in the summer of 2020, which I find, what an interesting coincidence. Then, when the New York Post publishes its first article on October 14, it's Jim Baker who makes the most strenuous argument within Twitter, multiple emails, multiple messages saying this doesn't look real. There's people, there's intelligence experts, saying that this could be Russian disinformation. He is the most strenuous person inside Twitter arguing that it's probably Russian disinformation. The internal evaluation by Yoel Roth, who testified in front of this committee, was that it was what it looked to be, which was that it was not a result of a hack and leak operation. And why did he think that? Because the New York Post had published the FBI subpoena taking the laptop in December of 2019. And they published the agreement that the computer store owner had with Hunter Biden that gave him permission, after he abandoned the laptop, to use it however he wanted. So there really wasn't much doubt about the provenance of that laptop. But you had Jim Baker making a strenuous argument. And then, of course, you get to a few days after the October 14 release, you have the president of the United States echoing what these former intelligence community officials were saying, which is that it looked like a Russian influence operation. So they were claiming that the laptop was made public by the conspiracy theory that somehow the Russians got it. And basically, they convinced Yoel Roth of this wild hack and leak story that somehow the Russians stole it, got the information, gave us the computer, it was bizarre. So you read that chain of events, and it appears as though there is an organized influence operation to pre-bunk.... Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Why do you think they could predict the time, the method, and the person? Why could the FBI predict it? Not only did they predict this, they predicted it, so did the Aspen Institute, seemed like everyone was in the know saying, here's what's gonna happen, we can read the future. Why do you think, how do you think they were able to do that? Michael Shellenberger: I think the most important fact to know is that the FBI had that laptop in December 2019. They were also spying on Rudy Giuliani when he got the laptop and when he gave it to the New York Post. Now, maybe the FBI agents who are going to Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Twitter executives and warning of a hack and leak, potentially involving Hunter Biden, maybe those guys didn't have anything to do with the guys that had the top. We don't know that. I have to say, as a newcomer to this, as somebody that thought it was Russian disinformation in 2020, everybody I knew thought it was Russian disinformation, I was shocked to see that series of events going on. It looks to me like a deliberate influence operation. I don't have the proof of it, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty disturbing. 2:14:30 Matt Taibbi: We found, just yesterday, a Tweet from the Virality Project at Stanford, which was partnered with a number of government agencies, and Twitter, where they talked explicitly about censoring stories of true vaccine side effects and other true stories that they felt encouraged hesitancy. Now the imp— Unknown Representative: So these were true. Matt Taibbi: Yes. So they use the word truth three times in this email, and what's notable about this is that it reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of this whole disinformation complex, anti-disinformation complex. They believe that ordinary people can't handle difficult truths. And so they think that they need minders to separate out things that are controversial or difficult for them, and that's again, that's totally contrary to what America is all about, I think. 2:17:30 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): Of course we all believe in the First Amendment, but the First Amendment applies to government prohibition of speech, not to private companies. 2:33:00 Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY): And even with, Twitter you cannot find actual evidence of any direct government censorship of any lawful speech. 2:33:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following email from Clarke Humphrey, Executive Office of the Presidency, White House Office, January 23, 2021. That's the Biden Administration. 4:39am: "Hey folks," this goes to Twitter, "Hey folks, wanted..." they used the term Mr. Goldman just used, "wanted to flag the below Tweet, and I'm wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP." 2:35:40 Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): He said the First Amendment applies to government censorship of speech and not private companies, but what we're talking about and what the Chairman just illustrated is that what we have here and what your Twitter files show is the Federal government has partnered with private companies to censor and silence the speech of American citizens. 2:29:20 Matt Taibbi: In the first Twitter files, we saw an exchange between Representative Ro Khanna and Vijaya Gadde, where he's trying to explain the basics of speech law in America and she's completely, she seems completely unaware of what, for instance, New York Times v. Sullivan is. There are other cases like Bartnicki v. Vopper, which legalized the publication of stolen material, that's very important for any journalists to know. I think most of these people are tech executives, and they don't know what the law is around speech and around reporting. And in this case, and in 2016, you are dealing with true material. There is no basis to restrict the publication of true material no matter who the sources and how you get it. And journalists have always understood that and this has never been an issue or a controversial issue until very recently. 2:44:40 Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Would you agree that there was a black list created in 2021? Michael Shellenberger: Sorry, yes, Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford Professor, who I don't think anybody considers a fringe epidemiologist, was indeed -- I'm sorry, I couldn't, I didn't piece it together -- he was indeed visibility filtered. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL): Correct. And so this blacklist that was created, that really was used to de-platform, reduce visibility, create lists internally, where people couldn't even see their profiles, that was used against doctors and scientists who produced information that was contrary to what the CDC was putting out, despite the fact that we now know that what they were publishing had scientific basis and in fact was valid. Michael Shellenberger: Absolutely. And not only that, but these are secret blacklists, so Professor Bhattacharya had no idea he was on it. 43:05 Matt Taibbi: The original promise of the internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow, its very existence a threat to anti-democratic forms of government everywhere. What we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise and use machine learning and other tools to turn the Internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. We saw the first hints and communications between Twitter executives before the 2020 election, when we read things like "flagged by DHS," or "please see attached report from FBI for potential misinformation." This would be attached to an Excel spreadsheet with a long list of names, whose accounts were often suspended shortly after. February 13, 2023 The Joe Rogan Experience Clips Matt Taibbi: So this is another topic that is fascinating because it hasn't gotten a ton of press. But if you go back all the way to the early 70s, the CIA and the FBI got in a lot of trouble for various things, the CIA for assassination schemes involving people like Castro, the FBI for, you know, COINTELPRO and other programs, domestic surveillance, and they made changes after Congressional hearings, the Church Committee, that basically said the FBI, from now on, you have to have some kind of reason to be following somebody or investigating somebody, you have to have some kind of criminal predicate and we want you mainly to be investigating cases. But after 9/11 they peeled all this back. There was a series of Attorney General memos that essentially re-fashioned what the FBI does, and now they don't have to be doing crimefighting all the time. Now they can be doing basically 100% intelligence gathering all the time. They can be infiltrating groups for no reason at all, not to build cases, but just to get information. And so that's why they're there. They're in these groups, they're posted up outside of the homes of people they find suspicious, but they're not building cases and they're not investigating crimes. It's sort of like Minority Report there, right? It's pre-crime. Matt Taibbi: We see reports in these files of government agencies sending lists of accounts that are accusing the United States of vaccine corruption. Now, what they're really talking about is pressuring foreign countries to not use generic vaccines. Right. And, you know, that's a liberal issue, that's a progressive issue. The progressives want generic vaccines to be available to poor countries, okay? But, you know, you can use this tool to eliminate speech about that if you want too, right? I think that's what they don't get is that the significance is not who [it's used against], the significance is the tool. What is it capable of doing, right? How easily is it employed, and you know, how often is it used? And they don't focus on that. Joe Rogan: Has anything been surprising to you? Matt Taibbi: A little bit. I think going into it, I thought that the relationship between the security agencies like the FBI and the DHS and companies like Twitter and Facebook, I thought it was a little bit less formal. I thought maybe they had kind of an advisory role. And what we find is that it's not that, it's very formalized. They have a really intense structure that they've worked out over a period of years where they have regular meetings. They have a system where the DHS handles censorship requests that come up from the States and the FBI handles international ones, and they all float all these companies and it's a big bureaucracy. I don't think we expected to see that. Matt Taibbi: I was especially shocked by an email from a staffer for Adam Schiff, the Congressperson, the California Congressman. And they're just outright saying we would like you to suspend the accounts of this journalist and anybody who retweets information about this Committee. You know, I mean, this is a member of Congress. Joe Rogan: Yeah. Matt Taibbi: Right? Most of these people have legal backgrounds. They've got lawyers in the office for sure. And this is the House Intelligence Committee. February 8, 2023 House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Witnesses: Vijaya Gadde, Former Chief Legal Officer, Twitter James Baker, Former Deputy General Counsel, Twitter Yoel Roth, Former Global Head of Trust & Safety, Twitter Annika Collier Navaroli, Former Policy Expert for Content Moderation, Twitter Clips 14:50 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): What's more, Twitter's editorial decision has been analyzed and debated ad nauseam. Some people think it was the right decision. Some people think it was the wrong decision. But the key point here is that it was Twitter's decision. Twitter is a private media company. In America, private media companies can decide what to publish or how to curate content however they want. If Twitter wants to have nothing but Tweets commenting on New York Post articles run all day, it can do that. If it makes such tweets mentioning New York Post never see the light of day they can do that too. That's what the First Amendment means. 16:05 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Officially Twitter happens to think they got it wrong about that day or two period. In hindsight, Twitter's former CEO Jack Dorsey called it a mistake. This apology might be a statement of regret about the company being overly cautious about the risks of publishing contents and potentially hacked or stolen materials, or it may reflect craven surrender to a right wing pressure campaign. But however you interpreted the apology just makes the premise of this hearing all the more absurd. The professional conspiracy theorists who are heckling and haranguing this private company have already gotten exactly what they want: an apology. What more do they want? And why does the US Congress have to be involved in this nonsense when we have serious work to do for the American people? 26:20 James Baker: The law permits the government to have complex, multifaceted, and long term relationships with the private sector. Law enforcement agencies and companies can engage with each other regarding, for example, compulsory legal process served on companies, criminal activity that companies, the government, or the public identify, such as crimes against children, cybersecurity threats, and terrorism, and instances where companies themselves are victims of crime. When done properly, these interactions can be beneficial to both sides and in the interest of the public. As you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jordan, and others have proposed, a potential workable way to legislate in this area may be to focus on the actions of federal government agencies and officials with respect to their engagement with the private sector. Congress may be able to limit the nature and scope of those interactions in certain ways, require enhanced transparency and reporting by the executive branch about its engagements, and require higher level approvals within the executive branch prior to such engagements on certain topics, so that you can hold Senate confirmed officials, for example, accountable for those decisions. In any event, if you want to legislate, my recommendation is to focus first on reasonable and effective limitations on government actors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 31:05 Vijaya Gadde: On October 14, 2020, The New York Post tweeted articles about Hunter Biden's laptop with embedded images that looked like they may have been obtained through hacking. In 2018, we had developed a policy intended to prevent Twitter from becoming a dumping ground for hacked materials. We applied this policy to the New York Post tweets and blocked links to the articles embedding those sorts of materials. At no point to Twitter otherwise prevent tweeting, reporting, discussing or describing the contents of Mr. Biden's laptop. People could and did talk about the contents of the laptop on Twitter or anywhere else, including other much larger platforms, but they were prevented from sharing the primary documents on Twitter. Still, over the course of that day, it became clear that Twitter had not fully appreciated the impact of that policy on free press and others. As Mr. Dorsey testified before Congress on multiple occasions, Twitter changed its policy within 24 hours and admitted its initial action was wrong. This policy revision immediately allowed people to tweet the original articles with the embedded source materials, relying on its long standing practice not to retroactively apply new policies. Twitter informed the New York Post that it could immediately begin tweeting when it deleted the original tweets, which would have freed them to retweet the same content again. The New York Post chose not to delete its original tweets, so Twitter made an exception after two weeks to retroactively apply the new policy to the Post's tweets. In hindsight, Twitter should have reinstated the Post account immediately. 35:35 Yoel Roth: In 2020, Twitter noticed activity related to the laptop that at first glance bore a lot of similarities to the 2016 Russian hack and leak operation targeting the DNC, and we had to decide what to do. And in that moment with limited information, Twitter made a mistake. 36:20 Yoel Roth: It isn't obvious what the right response is to a suspected, but not confirmed, cyber attack by another government on a Presidential Election. I believe Twitter erred in this case because we wanted to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016. 38:41 Annika Collier Navaroli: I joined Twitter in 2019 and by 2020 I was the most senior expert on Twitter's U.S. Safety Policy Team. My team's mission was to protect free speech and public safety by writing and enforcing content moderation policies around the world. These policies include things like abuse, harassment, hate speech, violence and privacy. 41:20 Annika Collier Navaroli: With January 6 and many other decisions, content moderators like me did the very best that we could. But far too often there are far too few of us and we are being asked to do the impossible. For example, in January 2020 after the US assassinated an Iranian General and the US president decided to justify it on Twitter, management literally instructed me and my team to make sure that World War III did not start on the platform. 1:08:20 Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Did the US government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to censor or moderate certain Tweets, yes or no? Vijaya Gadde: We receive legal demands to remove content from the platform from the US government and governments all around the world. Those are published on a third party website. 1:12:00 Yoel Roth: The number one most influential part of the Russian active measures campaign in 2016 was the hack and leak targeting John Podesta. It would have been foolish not to consider the possibility that they would run that play again. 1:44:45 Yoel Roth: I think one of the key failures that we identified after 2016 was that there was very little information coming from the government and from intelligence services to the private sector. The private sector had the power to remove bots and to take down foreign disinformation campaigns, but we didn't always know where to look without leads supplied by the intelligence community. That was one of the failures highlighted in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report and in the Mueller investigation, and that was one of the things we set out to fix in 2017. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): On September 8 2019, at 11:11pm, Donald Trump heckled two celebrities on Twitter -- John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen -- and referred to them as "the musician John Legend and his filthy mouth wife." Ms. Teigen responded to that email [Tweet] at 12:17am. And according to notes from a conversation with you, Ms. Navaroli's, counsel, your counsel, the White House almost immediately thereafter contacted Twitter to demand the tweet be taken down. Is that accurate? Annika Collier Navaroli: Thank you for the question. In my role, I was not responsible for receiving any sort of request from the government. However, what I was privy to was my supervisors letting us know that we had received something along those lines or something of a request. And in that particular instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet, and that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement towards the President. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): They wanted it to come down. They made that request. Annika Collier Navaroli: To my recollection, yes. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): I thought that was an inappropriate action by a government official, let alone the White House. But it wasn't Joe Biden, about his son's laptop. It was Donald Trump because he didn't like what Chrissy Teigen had to say about him, is that correct? Annika Collier Navaroli: Yes, that is correct. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): My, my, my. 1:45:15 Rep. Shontel Brown (D-OH): Mr. Roth, were those communication channels useful to Twitter as they work to combat foreign influence operations? Yoel Roth: Absolutely, I would say they were one of the most essential pieces of how Twitter prepared for future elections. 2:42:35 Rep. Becca Balint (D-VA): Ms. Gadde, did anyone from the Biden campaign or the Democratic National Committee direct Twitter to remove or take action against the New York Post story? Vijaya Gadde: No. 4:15:45 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And now we forward to 2020. And earlier you had testified that you were having regular interactions with National Intelligence, Homeland Security and the FBI. Yoel Roth: Yes, I did. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And primarily to deal with foreign interference? Yoel Roth: Primarily, but I would say -- Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): But you had said earlier your contact with Agent Chang was primarily with foreign interference? Yoel Roth: Yes, that's right. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): And these were emails....were there meetings? Yoel Roth: Yes, Twitter met quarterly with the FBI Foreign Interference Task Force and we had those meetings running for a number of years to share information about malign foreign interference. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Agents from Homeland Security or Intelligence, or just primarily the FBI? Yoel Roth: Our primary contacts were with the FBI and in those quarterly meetings, they were, I believe, exclusively with FBI personnel. 4:18:05 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Earlier today you testified that you were following national security experts on Twitter as a reason to take down the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop. Yoel Roth: Yes, sir, I did. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): So after 2016, you set up all these teams to deal with Russian interference, foreign interference, you're having regular meetings with the FBI, you have connections with all of these different government agencies, and you didn't reach out to them once? Yoel Roth: Is that question in reference to the day of the New York Post article? Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Yeah. Yoel Roth: That's right. We generally did not reach out to the FBI to consult on content moderation decisions, especially where they related to domestic activity. It's not that we wouldn't have liked that information, we certainly would have. It's that I don't believe it would have been appropriate for us to consult with the FBI. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): In December of 2020, you did a declaration to the Federal Election Commission that the intelligence community expected a leak and a hack operation involving Hunter Biden. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the FBI warned Meta that there was a high effort of Russian propaganda including language specific enough to fit the Hunter Biden laptop security story. You're talking to these people for weeks and months, years prior to this leaking. They have specifically told you in October, that there's going to be a leak potentially involving Hunter Biden's laptop. They legitimately and literally prophesized what happened. And you didn't contact any of them? Yoel Roth: No, sir, I did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Did they reach out to you? Yoel Roth: On and around that day, to the best of my recollection, no, they did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): After the story was taken down and you guys did it, and you personally disagreed with it Ms. Gadde, did you contact them and say is "Hey, is this what you were talking about?" Yoel Roth: If that question was directed to me. No, I did not. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): Ms. Gadde, did you talk to anybody from the FBI? Vijaya Gadde: Not to the best of my recollection. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND): So I guess my question is, what is the point of this program? You have constant communication, they're set up for foreign interference. They've legitimately warned you about this very specific thing. And then all of a sudden, everybody just walks away? 5:18:55 Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM): We are devoting an entire day to this conspiracy theory involving Twitter. Now, the mission of this committee is to root out waste, fraud and abuse and to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people. And if you need any evidence of waste, fraud and abuse, how about the use of this committee's precious time, space and resources to commit to this hearing? 5:58:25 Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Back to Mr. Roth, is it true that Twitter whitelisted accounts for the Department of Defense to spread propaganda about its efforts in the Middle East? Did they give you a list of accounts that were fake accounts and asked you to whitelist those accounts? Yoel Roth: That request was made of Twitter. To be clear, when I found out about that activity, I was appalled by it. I undid the action and my team exposed activity originating from the Department of Defense's campaign publicly. We've shared that data with the world and research about it has been published. 6:07:20 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Mr. Roth, I want to go back to your statement in your declaration to the FEC "I learned that a hack and leak operation would involve Hunter Biden," who did you learn that from? Yoel Roth: My recollection is it was mentioned by another technology company in one of our joint meetings, but I don't recall specifically whom. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): You don't know the person's name? Yoel Roth: I don't even recall what company they worked at. No, this was a long time ago. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): And you're confident that it was from a tech company, not from someone from the government? Yoel Roth: To the best of my recollection, yes. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Did anyone from the government, in these periodic meetings you had, did they ever tell you that a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden was coming? Yoel Roth: No. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Did Hunter Biden's name come up at all these meetings? Yoel Roth: Yes, his name was raised in those meetings, but not by the government to the best of my recollection. 6:09:30 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Mr. Roth, why were you reluctant, based on what I read in the Twitter files, why were you reluctant to work with the GEC? Yoel Roth: It was my understanding that the GEC, or the Global Engagement Center of the State Department, had previously engaged in at least what some would consider offensive influence operations. Not that they were offensive as in bad, but offensive as in they targeted entities outside of the United States. And on that basis, I felt that it would be inappropriate for Twitter to engage with a part of the State Department that was engaged in active statecraft. We were dedicated to rooting out malign foreign interference no matter who it came from. And if we found that the American government was engaged in malign foreign interference, we'd be addressing that as well. 6:13:50 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Twitter is a private company, but they enjoy special liability protections, Section 230. They also, according to the Twitter files, receive millions of dollars from the FBI, which is tax dollars, I would assume. And that makes it a concern of the Oversight Committee. October 28, 2020 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, [Former] CEO, Twitter Sundar Pichai, CEO, Alphabet and Google Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook [Meta] Clips 2:20:40 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they’re leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they’re amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. 3:15:40 Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Why did you throttle it back? Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. June 18, 2020 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles, Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado, Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google 1:40:10 Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. Music Presented in This Episode by

CD269: NDAA 2023/Plan Ecuador

26 februari 2023 | 90 min

The annual war authorization (NDAA) is an excellent opportunity to examine our military’s roles and goals in the world. In this episode, learn about how much of our tax money Congress provided the Defense Department, including how much of that money is classified, how much more money was dedicated to war than was requested, and what they are authorized to use the money for. This episode also examines our Foreign Military Financing programs with a deep dive into a new partner country: Ecuador. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes World Trade System James McWhinney. Oct 10, 2021. Investopedia. Sally Denton. Simon and Schuster: 2017. Littoral Combat Ships Eric Lipton. Feb 4, 2023. The New York Times. Open Secrets. Foreign Military Sales Program March 10, 2022. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ecuador Encyclopedia Britannica. Catrin Einhorn and Manuela Andreoni. Updated Jan 20, 2023. The New York Times. June S. Beittel and Rachel L. Martin. Sep 9, 2022. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. Updated Feb 13, 2018. Congressional Research Service. June S. Beittel. Updated April 20, 2017. Congressional Research Services. Debt Default Sarah Anderson and Neil Watkins. Dec 15, 2008. Institute for Policy Studies. Simon Romero. Dec 12, 2008. The New York Times. Violence and Drugs Nov 4, 2022. International Crisis Group. Jun 8, 2022. EcuadorTimes.net. Vanessa Buschschluter. Nov 4, 2021. BBC. Oct 19, 2021. Deutsche Welle. Mining Updated Mar 28, 2022. CGTN America. Bitty A. Roy. Jun 19, 2018. Tropical Conservation Science. Foreign Infrastructure Investments Nov 28, 2022. BNamericas. May 27, 2022. U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Richard Jiménez and Allen Panchana. Dec 16, 2021. Diálogo Chino. Frank Dougherty. Mar 1, 2021. Power. Fishing Joshua Goodman. Nov 2, 2022. Chattanooga Times Free Press. October 2022. U.S. Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing. Oct 7, 2022. U.S. Agency for International Development. U.S. Coast Guard. Oct 5, 2022. Diálogo Americas. Adam Chandler. Dec 16, 2015. The Atlantic. Cutter Ships Ronald O'Rourke. Updated August 30, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Julian Assange Luke Harding et al. May 15, 2018. The Guardian. Simon Romero. Apr 5, 2011. The New York Times. Chevron Case Zack Budryk. Dec 27, 2022. The Hill. Venezuela Apr 14, 2021. teleSUR. China Trade Deal Jan 3, 2023. Reuters. Sep 23, 2022. The Dialogue. Alexandra Valencia. Feb 5, 2022. Reuters. Business Reforms Ramiro Crespo. Mar 3, 2022. Latin American Advisor. U.S. Ecuador Partnership Isabel Chriboga. Dec 22, 2022. The Atlantic Council. Jim Wiesemeyer. Dec 21, 2022. AgWeb. Dec 19, 2022. Al Jazeera. Isabel Chiriboga. Dec 19, 2022. The Atlantic Council. Nov 1, 2022. Office of the United States Trade Representative. Oct 19, 2022. U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Ecuador. Referendum Sebastián Hurtado. Dec 19, 2022. Americas Quarterly. State Enterprise Resignation Jan 18, 2023. Buenos Aires Times. Lithium Triangle John Price. Aug 22, 2022. Americas Market Intelligence. Colombia Catherine Osborn. Jan 20, 2023. Foreign Policy. María Paula Rubiano A. Nov 16, 2022. BBC. June S. Beittel. Updated December 16, 2021. Congressional Research Service. Tax Reform Ricardo Ávila. Nov 23, 2022. Americas Quarterly. Cesar Vence and Megan Bridges. Oct 26, 2022. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Relationship with U.S. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Jul 8, 2021. City of Hope. Kejal Vyas. May 4, 2020. The Wall Street Journal. Luoping Zhang et al. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research Vol. 781, July–September 2019, pp. 186-206. Jun 26, 2018. Syria Mehdi Hasan. Oct 26, 2019. The Intercept. Jan 20, 2021. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Mark Mazzetti et al. Aug 2, 2017. The New York Times. C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt. Mar 24, 2013. The New York Times. Government Funding Dec 23, 2022. House Appropriations Committee Democrats. Senate Appropriations Committee. Senate Appropriations Committee. Laws Bills Audio Sources January 19, 2023 The Atlantic Council Clips 17:51 Gen. Laura Richardson: The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that has been ongoing for the last over a decade in this region, 21 of 31 countries have signed on to this Belt and Road Initiative. I could take Argentina last January, the most recent signatory on to the Belt and Road Initiative, and $23 billion in infrastructure projects that signatory and signing on to that. But again, 21 of 31 countries. There are 25 countries that actually have infrastructure projects by the PRC. Four that aren't signatories of the BRI, but they do actually have projects within their countries. But not just that. Deepwater ports in 17 countries. I mean, this is critical infrastructure that's being invested in. I have the most space enabling infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere in Latin America and the Caribbean. And I just caused question, you know, why? Why is all of this critical infrastructure being invested in so heavily? In terms of telecommunications, 5G, I've got five countries with the 5G backbone in this region. I've got 24 countries with the PRC Huawei 3G-4G. Five countries have the Huawei backbone infrastructure. If I had to guess, they'll probably be offered a discount to upgrade and stay within the same PRC network. And so very, very concerning as we work with our countries. 20:00 Gen. Laura Richardson: What I'm starting to see as well is that this economy...the economy impacts to these partner nations is affecting their ability to buy equipment. And you know, as I work with our partner nations, and they invest in U.S. equipment, which is the best equipment, I must say I am a little biased, but it is the best equipment, they also buy into the supply chain of spare parts, and all those kinds of things that help to sustain this piece of equipment over many, many years. So in terms of the investment that they're getting, and that equipment to be able to stay operational, and the readiness of it, is very, very important. But now these partner nations, due to the impacts of their economy, are starting to look at the financing that goes along with it. Not necessarily the quality of the equipment, but who has the best finance deal because they can't afford it so much up front. 24:15 Gen. Laura Richardson: This region, why this region matters, with all of its rich resources and rare earth elements. You've got the lithium triangle which is needed for technology today. 60% of the world's lithium is in the lithium triangle: Argentina Bolivia, Chile. You just have the largest oil reserves -- light, sweet, crude -- discovered off of Guyana over a year ago. You have Venezuela's resources as well with oil, copper, gold. China gets 36% of its food source from this region. We have the Amazon, lungs of the world. We have 31% of the world's freshwater in this region too. I mean, it's just off the chart. 28:10 Gen. Laura Richardson: You know, you gotta question, why are they investing so heavily everywhere else across the planet? I worry about these dual-use state-owned enterprises that pop up from the PRC, and I worry about the dual use capability being able to flip them around and use them for military use. 33:30 Interviewer: Russia can't have the ability to provide many of these countries with resupply or new weapons. I mean, they're struggling to supply themselves, in many cases, for Ukraine. So is that presenting an opportunity for maybe the US to slide in? Gen. Laura Richardson: It is, absolutely and we're taking advantage of that, I'd like to say. So, we are working with those countries that have the Russian equipment to either donate or switch it out for United States equipment. or you Interviewer: Are countries taking the....? Gen. Laura Richardson: They are, yeah. 45:25 Gen. Laura Richardson: National Guard State Partnership Program is huge. We have the largest National Guard State Partnership Program. It has come up a couple of times with Ukraine. Ukraine has the State Partnership Program with California. How do we initially start our great coordination with Ukraine? It was leveraged to the National Guard State Partnership Program that California had. But I have the largest out of any of the CoCOMMs. I have 24 state partnership programs utilize those to the nth degree in terms of another lever. 48:25 Gen. Laura Richardson: Just yesterday I had a zoom call with the U.S. Ambassadors from Argentina and Chile and then also the strategy officer from Levant and then also the VP for Global Operations from Albermarle for lithium, to talk about the lithium triangle in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and the companies, how they're doing and what they see in terms of challenges and things like that in the lithium business and then the aggressiveness or the influence and coercion from the PRC. June 15, 2022 Clips Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): The GAO found that the LCS had experienced engine failure in 10 of the 11 deployments reviewed. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): One major reason for the excessive costs of LCS: contractors. Unlike other ships where sailors do the maintenance, LCS relies almost exclusively on contractors who own and control the technical data needed to maintain and repair. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): Our top priority and national defense strategy is China and Russia. We can't waste scarce funds on costly LCS when there are more capable platforms like destroyers, attack submarines, and the new constellation class frigate. May 25, 2022 Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, United States Navy Admiral Michael M. Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps Clips Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): I think the christening was just a few years ago...maybe three or so. So the fact that we christened the ship one year and a few years later we're decommissioning troubles me. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): Are there not other uses, if there's something missing from this class of ships, that we would avoid decommissioning? Adm. Michael Gilday: We need a capable, lethal, ready Navy more than we need a larger Navy that's less capable, less lethal, and less ready. And so, unfortunately the Littoral combat ships that we have, while the mechanical issues were a factor, a bigger factor was was the lack of sufficient warfighting capability against a peer competitor in China. Adm. Michael Gilday: And so we refuse to put an additional dollar against that system that wouldn't match the Chinese undersea threat. Adm. Michael Gilday: In terms of what are the options going forward with these ships, I would offer to the subcommittee that we should consider offering these ships to other countries that would be able to use them effectively. There are countries in South America, as an example, as you pointed out, that would be able to use these ships that have small crews. April 25, 2022 March 31, 2022 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Witnesses: Kerri Hannan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Policy, Planning, and Coordination, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State Peter Natiello, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Latin America and Caribbean Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development Andrew M. Herscowitz, Chief Development Officer, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Margaret Myers, Director of the Asia & Latin America Program, Inter-American Dialogue Evan Ellis, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies Clips 24:20 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): Ecuador for example, nearly 20 years ago, former President Rafael Correa promised modernization for Ecuador, embracing Chinese loans and infrastructure projects in exchange for its oil. Fast forward to today. Ecuador now lives with the Chinese financed and built dam that's not fully operational despite being opened in 2016. The Coca Codo Sinclair Dam required over 7000 repairs, it sits right next to an active volcano, and erosion continues to damage the dam. The dam also caused an oil spill in 2020 that has impacted indigenous communities living downstream. And all that's on top of the billions of dollars that Ecuador still owes China. 56:40 Peter Natiello: One example that I could provide is work that we've done in Ecuador, with Ecuadorian journalists, to investigate, to analyze and to report on the issue of illegal and unregulated fishing off Ecuador's coast. And we do that because we want to ensure that Ecuadorian citizens have fact-based information upon which they can make decisions about China and countries like China, and whether they want their country working with them. 1:23:45 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): There are 86 million tons of identified lithium resources on the planet. On the planet. 49 million of the 86 million are in the Golden Triangle. That's Argentina, Bolivia, Chile. So what's our plan? 1:54:10 Evan Ellis: In security engagement, the PRC is a significant provider of military goods to the region including fighters, transport aircraft, and radars for Venezuela; helicopters and armored vehicles for Bolivia; and military trucks for Ecuador. 2:00:00 Margaret Myers: Ecuador is perhaps the best example here of a country that has begun to come to terms with the challenges associated with doing business with or interacting from a financial or investment perspective with China. And one need only travel the road from the airport to Quito where every day there are a lot of accidents because of challenges with the actual engineering of that road to know why many Ecuadorians feel this way. March 10, 2022 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Witnesses: Jessica Lewis, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State Mara Elizabeth Karlin, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities, U.S. Department of Defense Clips 1:23:17 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): According to one study, the DoD manages 48 of the 50 new security assistance programs that were created after the 9/11 attacks and out of the 170 existing security assistance programs today, DOD manages 87, a whopping 81% of those programs. That is a fundamental transition from the way in which we used to manage security assistance. And my worry is that it takes out of the equation the people who have the clearest and most important visibility on the ground as to the impact of that security assistance and those transfers. Sen. Chris Murphy: We just spent $87 billion in military assistance over 20 years in Afghanistan. And the army that we supported went up in smoke overnight. That is an extraordinary waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and it mirrors a smaller but similar investment we made from 2003 to 2014 in the Iraqi military, who disintegrated when they faced the prospect of a fight against ISIS. Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way in which we are flowing military assistance to partner countries, especially in complicated war zones. You've got a minute and 10 seconds, so maybe you can just preview some lessons that we have learned, or the process by which we are going to learn lessons from all of the money that we have wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jessica Lewis: Senator, I'll be brief so that Dr. Karlin can jump in as well. I think we do need to learn lessons. We need to make sure, as I was just saying to Senator Cardin, that when we provide security assistance, we also look not just at train and equip, but we look at other things like how the Ministries of Defense operate? Is their security sector governant? Are we creating an infrastructure that's going to actually work? Mara Elizabeth Karlin: Thank you for raising this issue, Senator. And I can assure you that the Department of Defense is in the process of commissioning a study on this exact issue. I will just say in line with Assistant Secretary Lewis, it is really important that when we look at these efforts, we spend time assessing political will and we do not take an Excel spreadsheet approach to building partner militaries that misses the higher order issues that are deeply relevant to security sector governance, that will fundamentally show us the extent to which we can ultimately be successful or not with a partner. Thank you. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): You know, in Iraq, last time I was there, we were spending four times as much money on security assistance as we were on non-security assistance. And what Afghanistan taught us amongst many things, is that if you have a fundamentally corrupt government, then all the money you're flowing into the military is likely wasted in the end because that government can't stand and thus the military can't stand. So it also speaks to rebalancing the way in which we put money into conflict zones, to not think that military assistance alone does the job. You got to be building sustainable governments that serve the public interests in order to make your security assistance matter and be effective. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. March 8, 2022 House Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Melissa G. Dalton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs Office of the Secretary of Defense General Laura Richardson, USA, Commander, U.S. Southern Command General Glen D. VanHerck, USAF, Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Clips 17:30 General Laura Richardson: Colombia, for example, our strongest partner in the region, exports security by training other Latin American militaries to counter transnational threats. 1:20:00 General Laura Richardson: If I look at what PRC (People's Republic of China) is investing in the [SOUTHCOM] AOR (Area of Responsibility), over a five year period of 2017 to 2021: $72 billion. It's off the charts. And I can read a couple of the projects. The most concerning projects that I have are the $6 billion in projects specifically near the Panama Canal. And I look at the strategic lines of communication: Panama Canal and the Strait of Magellan. But just to highlight a couple of the projects. The nuclear power plant in Argentina: $7.9 billion. The highway in Jamaica: $5.6 billion. The energy refinery in Cuba, $5 billion. The highway in Peru: $4 billion. Energy dam in Argentina: $4 billion, the Metro in Colombia: $3.9 billion. The freight railway in Argentina: $3 billion. These are not small projects that they're putting in this region. This region is rich in resources, and the Chinese don't go there to invest, they go there to extract. All of these projects are done with Chinese labor with host nation countries'. November 30, 2021 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Witnesses: Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State Clips 1:47:15 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): I'd like to start with Mexico. I am increasingly concerned that the Mexican government is engaged in a systematic campaign to undermine American companies, and especially American energy companies that have invested in our shared prosperity and in the future of the Mexican people and economy. Over the past five months, Mexican regulators have shut down three privately owned fuel storage terminals. Among those they shut down a fuel terminal and Tuxpan, which is run by an American company based in Texas, and which transports fuel on ships owned by American companies. This is a pattern of sustained discrimination against American companies. And I worry that the Mexican government's ultimate aim is to roll back the country's historic 2013 energy sector liberalisation reforms in favor of Mexico's mismanaged and failing state-owned energy companies. The only way the Mexican government is going to slow and reverse their campaign is if the United States Government conveys clearly and candidly that their efforts pose a serious threat to our relationship and to our shared economic interests. 2:01:50 Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): Mr. Nichols, can you can you just be a little more specific about the tactics of the GEC? What are some of the specific activities they're doing? And what more would you like to see them do? Brian A. Nichols: The Global Engagement Center both measures public opinion and social media trends throughout the world. They actively work to counter false messages from our strategic competitors. And they prepare media products or talking points that our embassies and consulates around the hemisphere can use to combat disinformation. I think they do a great job. Obviously, it's a huge task. So the the resources that they have to bring to bear to this limit, somewhat, the ability to accomplish those goals, but I think they're doing vital, vital work. 2:13:30 Todd D. Robinson: We are, INL (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) are working very closely with the Haitian National Police, the new Director General, we are going to send in advisors. When I was there two weeks ago, I arrived with -- they'd asked for greater ability to get police around the city -- I showed up with 19 new vehicles, 200 new protective vests for the police. The 19 was the first installment of a total of 60 that we're going to deliver to the Haitian National Police. We're gonna get advisors down there to work with the new SWAT team to start taking back the areas that have been taken from ordinary Haitians. But it's going to be a process and it's going to take some time. Sen. Bob Menendez: Well, first of all, is the Haitian National Police actually an institution capable of delivering the type of security that Hatians deserve? Todd D. Robinson: We believe it is. It's an institution that we have worked with in the past. There was a small brief moment where Haitians actually acknowledged that the Haitian National Police had gotten better and was more professional. Our goal, our long term goal is to try to bring it back to that Sen. Bob Menendez: How much time before we get security on the ground? Todd D. Robinson: I can't say exactly but we are working as fast as we can. Sen. Bob Menendez: Months, years? Todd D. Robinson: Well, I would hope we could do it in less than months. But we're working as fast as we can. January 25, 2018 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman of Kissinger Associates and Former Secretary of State Dr. George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Former Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International and Former Deputy Secretary of State Clips Dr. George Shultz: Small platforms will carry a very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones. And drones can be manufactured easily, and you can have a great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm armed with lethal equipment. Any fixed target is a real target. So an airfield where our Air Force stores planes is a very vulnerable target. A ship at anchor is a vulnerable target. So you’ve got to think about that in terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone—talking about getting a drone to the area of where its target is, but that sure could hit a specific target. At that point, the optical systems guided by artificial intelligence could use on-board, multi-spectral imaging to find a target and guide the weapons. It is exactly that autonomy that makes the technologic convergence a threat today. Because such drones will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will not be vulnerable to jamming. Not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platforms will also be able to operate in very large numbers. Dr. George Shultz: I think there’s a great lesson here for what we do in NATO to contain Russia because you can deploy these things in boxes so you don’t even know what they are and on trucks and train people to unload quickly and fire. So it’s a huge deterrent capability that is available, and it’s inexpensive enough so that we can expect our allies to pitch in and get them for themselves. Dr. George Shultz: The creative use of swarms of autonomous drones to augment current forces would strongly and relatively cheaply reinforce NATO, as I said, that deterrence. If NATO assists frontline states in fielding large numbers of inexpensive autonomous drones that are pre-packaged in standard 20-foot containers, the weapons can be stored in sites across the countries under the control of reserve forces. If the weapons are pre-packaged and stored, the national forces can quickly deploy the weapons to delay a Russian advance. So what’s happening is you have small, cheap, and highly lethal replacing large, expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity, and it is massively important to take it into account in anything that you are thinking about doing. June 15, 2017 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Witnesses: Tina Kaidanow, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey, Director, U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency Clips 14:40 Tina Kaidanow: Arms Transfers constitute an element of foreign policy. We therefore take into account foreign policy considerations as we contemplate each arms transfer or sale, including specifically, the appropriateness of the transfer in responding to U.S and recipient security needs; the degree to which the transfer supports U.S. strategic foreign policy and defense interests through increased access and influence; allied burden sharing and interoperability; consistency with U.S. interests regarding regional stability; the degree of protection afforded by the recipient company to our sensitive technology; the risk that significant change in the political or security situation of the recipient country could lead to inappropriate end use or transfer; and the likelihood that the recipient would use the arms to commit human rights abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law, or retransfer the arms to those who would commit such abuses. As a second key point, arms transfers support the U.S. Defense industrial base and they reduce the cost of procurement for our own U.S. military. Purchases made through the Foreign Military Sales, known as the FMS, system often can be combined with our Defense Department orders to reduce unit costs. Beyond this, the US defense industry directly employs over 1.7 million people across our nation. 20:20 Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey: FMS is the government-to-government process through which the U.S. government purchases defense articles, training, and services on behalf of foreign governments, authorized in the Arms Export Control Act. FMS is a long standing security cooperation program that supports partner and regional security, enhances military-to-military cooperation, enables interoperability and develops and maintains international relationships. Through the FMS process, the US government determines whether or not the sale is of mutual benefit to us and the partner, whether the technology can and will be protected, and whether the transfer is consistent with U.S. conventional arms transfer policy. The FMS system is actually a set of systems in which the Department of State, Department of Defense, and Congress play critical roles. The Department of Defense in particular executes a number of different processes including the management of the FMS case lifecycle which is overseen by DSCA (Defense Security Cooperation Agency). Technology transfer reviews, overseen by the Defense Technology Security Administration, and the management of the Defense Acquisition and Logistics Systems, overseen by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the military departments. This process, or a version of it, also serves us well, in the DoD Title X Building Partnership Capacity arena, where the process of building a case, validating a requirement and exercising our U.S. acquisition system to deliver capability is modeled on the FMS system. I want to say clearly that overall the system is performing very well. The United States continues to remain the provider of choice for our international partners, with 1,700 new cases implemented in Fiscal Year 2016 alone. These new cases, combined with adjustments to existing programs, equated to more than $33 billion in sales last year. This included over $25 billion in cases funded by our partner nations' own funds and approximately $8 billion in cases funded by DOD Title X program or Department of State's Appropriations. Most FMS cases move through the process relatively quickly. But some may move more slowly as we engage in deliberate review to ensure that the necessary arms transfer criteria are met. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD268: Disappearing Oversight: The NFL Sexual Misconduct Investigation

12 februari 2023 | 78 min

In December, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released a final report from their investigation into allegations of sexual assault committed by Washington Commanders team owner Dan Snyder. In this episode, you will hear the testimony and discover what the NFL did - or didn’t do - to punish the people who sexually harassed their employees. You will also learn that in the process of researching this episode, the Congressional Dish team discovered that the hearings related to this investigation, among others, have recently vanished from the committee archives, raising questions about how that happened and what needs to be done to prevent our sources from being disappeared. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Washington Commanders-Dan Snyder Background Adam Kilgore and Roman Stubbs. Jul 9, 2020. The Washington Post. Scott Allen. May 24, 2019. The Washington Post. Full House Committee on Oversight and Reform Report Dec 8, 2022. The New York Times. NFL Investigation Sally Jenkins. Jul 1, 2021. The Washington Post. Jul 1, 2021. NFL. Dan Snyder Misconduct Will Hobson and Liz Clarke. Dec 14, 2021. The Washington Post. Will Hobson et al. Jul 2, 2021. The Washington Post. Nicki Jhabvala and Mark Maske. Jun 29, 2021. The Washington Post. Will Hobson et al. Dec 22, 2020. The Washington Post. Will Hobson et al. Aug 26, 2020. The Washington Post. Will Hobson and Liz Clarke. Jul 16, 2020. The Washington Post. Dan Snyder Money Edward Sutelan. Nov 14, 2022. The Sporting News. Lauren Schwahn. Dec 2, 2022. Nerd Wallet. Dave Portnoy Superbowl Arrest Danny Small. Feb 4, 2019. Elite Sports NY. NFL Ownership and Potential Commanders Sale Scott Polacek. Feb 8, 2023. Bleacher Report. Joe Rivera. Nov 2, 2022. The Sporting News. Wikipedia. Past Congressional Oversight of Sporting Organizations Associated Press. Jul 28, 2007. MSNBC via the Wayback Machine. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee (109th Congress). March 17, 2005. C-SPAN. NFL Nonprofit Status and Lobbying IRS. Open Secrets. Matt Johnson. Jul 15, 2022. Sportsnaut. House Control Walter Shapiro. Feb 9, 2023. The New Republic. Laws Bills Hearings June 22, 2022 House Oversight and Reform Committee Witness: Rodger Goodell:, Commissioner, National Football League Clips 3:05 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): We also invited Daniel Snyder to testify today, but rather than show up and take responsibility for his actions, he chose to skip town. Apparently Mr. Snyder is in France, where he has docked his luxury yacht near a resort town. 3:45 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): According to top executives, he fired women, but not men, who engaged in relationships with other employees while defending male executives accused of sexual harassment. And he kept employees from speaking out through a culture of fear. As one longtime employee described Mr. Snyder's tactics: "If you don't obey, intimidate. If you still don't obey, terminate." Finally, the employee added, "If that didn't work, buy them off." The Committee has also uncovered evidence that Mr. Snyder conducted a shadow investigation to target his accusers, pin the blame on others, and influence the NFL's own internal review. He filed phony lawsuits to collect private phone records, emails, and text messages. 7:10 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Our first bill, the Accountability for Workplace Misconduct Act, will require employers to conduct thorough investigations and share the outcome with victims, and it will prohibit employers from using Non-disclosure Agreements to conceal workplace misconduct -- one of Dan Snyder's favorite tactics. Our second bill is the Professional Images Protection Act. Our investigation confirmed that the Commanders secretly created lewd videos of cheerleaders for the private enjoyment of Dan Snyder. That is despicable and our bill will create notice and consent requirements for employers who use their employees' professional images. 23:10 Rodger Goodell: Hi I'm Roger Goodell commissioner of the National Football League and I'm here today to discuss the NFL's efforts to promote safe and respectful workplaces, including at the Washington Commanders. 23:25 Rodger Goodell: The Commanders are one of 32 NFL clubs, each of which is managed by its ownership and executives and have their own workplaces and policies. Two years ago, the Commanders asked me to recommend independent counsel to address workplace issues and recommend changes to improve the workplace culture. We identified several candidates and the club selected Beth Wilkinson, a distinguished former Federal Prosecutor. Approximately six weeks later, the club asked my office to assume oversight of the Wilkinson firm's work. The Wilkinson firm conducted a comprehensive review of the workplace at the club, interviewing more than 150 witnesses. As a result, we gained a clearer understanding of what the workplace had been at the Commanders, how it had begun to change, and what further steps were needed to support our ultimate goal of transforming that workplace to one that is safe and productive for all of its employees. 25:05 Rodger Goodell: It is clear to me that the workplace in Washington was unprofessional and unacceptable in numerous respects: bullying, widespread disrespect toward colleagues, use of demeaning language, public embarrassment and harassment. Moreover, for a prolonged period of time, the Commanders had a woefully deficient HR function, particularly with respect to reporting practices and record keeping. As a result, we imposed unprecedented discipline on the club, monetary penalties of well over $10 million, and requirements that the club implement a series of recommendations and allow an outside firm to conduct regular reviews of their workplace. In addition, for the past year, Daniel Snyder has not attended league or committee meetings, and to the best of my knowledge has not been involved in day to day operations at the Commanders. The cheerleader program has been entirely revamped and it's now a co-ed dance team under new leadership. And the most recent independent workplace report, which we have shared with the Committee, confirms that an entirely new, highly skilled and diverse management team is in place, and that there has been, "substantial transformation of the team's culture, leadership and human resources practices." 26:35 Rodger Goodell: We did not receive a written report of Miss Wilkinson's findings for compelling reasons that continue to this day. A critical element of any workplace review is broad participation by both current and former employees. Encouraging employees to come forward and share their experiences, which were frequently painful and emotional, was essential to identifying both the organization's failures and how to fix them. To encourage this participation, Ms. Wilkinson promised confidentiality to any current or former employee. For this reason, shortly after we assumed oversight of Miss Wilkinson's work, we determined that a comprehensive oral briefing was best to allow us to receive the information necessary both to evaluate the workplace as it was, and to ensure that the team put in place the policies and processes to reform that workplace, all while preserving the confidentiality of those who participated in the investigation. 28:35 Rodger Goodell: When the committee has asked questions or requested documents which could violate witness privacy, we have asserted privilege. We will continue to do so to safeguard our commitment. 28:45 Rodger Goodell:: Earlier this year, the committee heard testimony from several former employees that included new and direct allegations against Mr. Snyder. We properly engaged former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White to investigate those allegations. Because those new allegations were brought to the committee in a public setting, we will share the results of that investigation when it's completed and will take additional disciplinary action if warranted. 29:50 Rodger Goodell: Finally, I want to address the Committee's review of Non-disclosure Agreements. Our policies do not allow a club to use an NDA to bar someone from participating in a league investigation, and nobody who wished to speak to the Wilkinson firm was prevented from doing so by an NDA. 36:45 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Mr. Snyder has not been held accountable. His refusal to testify sends a clear message that he is more concerned about protecting himself than coming clean with the American people. If the NFL is unwilling or unable to hold Mr. Snyder accountable, then I am prepared to do so. That is why I am announcing now my intent to issue a subpoena for the testimony of Mr. Snyder for a deposition next week. The committee will not be deterred in its investigation to uncover the truth of workplace misconduct at the Washington Commaders. 38:20 Rodger Goodell: While I have the microphone I'd also like to say, respectfully, that Dan Snyder has been held accountable. As I mentioned in the opening, he faced unprecedented discipline, including financial fines, being removed and away from the team at his request for a period of time up to the year now already, and secondly, and more importantly, transformation of that organization that is going on in the last year, which is really important. 42:25 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): This committee has no jurisdiction over private entities. Our jurisdiction is on government entities. 1:10:40 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Now, sir, you had mentioned that the reason for the press release as opposed to a detailed finding, as you had in the other cases was because of privacy concerns. Isn't that right? Rodger Goodell: That was one of the issues. Yes. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): However, I have this 148 Page Miami Dolphins harassment report that you did where you have redacted the names of various individuals out of privacy concerns. And so it is possible to release a detailed report and at the same time protect people's privacy, yet you chose not to do so in this particular case with the Commanders. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI): Study after study shows there is not systemic racism in our police departments. There is a narrative out there, for example, who to this day mislead the public as to what happened in Ferguson. The Black Lives Matter movement fanned the flames out there even though Barack Obama's own Justice Department found that shooting was justified and you have kind of piled on with the narrative that we have a fundamental problem. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): So non disclosure agreements by each of your various teams are not being used. Is that what you're saying? Rodger Goodell: No, I'm not saying that at all. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman may answer her question. Rodger Goodell: I'm not saying that. State by state...our teams operate in different states that have different laws. So the federal legislation is something that we're willing to work with the Committee on it. February 3, 2022 House Oversight and Reform Committee Witnesses: Emily Applegate, Former Marketing Coordinator, Washington Commanders Brad Baker, Former Manager and Producer of Video, Washington Commanders Melanie Coburn, Former Director of Marketing, Cheerleaders, Washington Commanders Rachel Engelson, Former Director of Marketing and Client Relations, Washington Commanders Tiffani Johnston, Former Manager of Marketing, Washington Commanders Ana Nunez, Former Coordinator of Business Development, Washington Commanders Clips 9:45 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Instead of adhering to our committee's mission to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and mismanagement in the federal government, Democrats instead are holding a roundtable about the work culture in one single private organization. 10:00 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Make no mistake, no one should face harassment at work and bad actors must be held accountable. But it's unclear why examining harassment that took place a decade ago in one private workplace warrants oversight from this committee. This issue is best handled by human resources and the courts, not Congress. 10:25 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Further, because of the bravery of the women testifying before us today, the culture of the franchise has completely turned around. And I want to thank the ladies for being here today. After the NFL investigation into the football team last year, Commissioner Roger Goodell levied the highest fine on an owner in the history of the sport, and suspended the owner from team's operations indefinitely. In addition, the commissioner made a series of recommendations to the team to improve its culture. This week, an independent audit confirmed those recommendations are working. Madam Chair, I'd like to submit the audit for the record. 11:30 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Because of the Commissioner's leadership, bad actors have been held accountable and the culture at the football team has improved. So why are Democrats utilizing committee resources today to examine an issue that is on the path to resolution and is outside this committee's jurisdiction? 18:15 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Our first participant is Melanie Coburn who was a cheerleader for the Washington Football Team from 1997 to 2001 and was the director of Marketing and Marketing Coordinator from 2001 to 2011. 18:30 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Then we will hear from Tiffany Johnston, who was a cheerleader for the Washington football team from 2007 to 2008, and a Marketing Manager and Marketing and Events Coordinator for Club Level Tickets from 2002 to 2008. 18:50 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Next we will hear from Brad Baker, who was a Producer at the Washington football team from 2007 to 2008 and a Video Production Manager from 2008 to 2009. 19:05 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Next we will hear from Ana Nunez, who was a Coordinator of Business Development and Client Service and an Account Executive at the Washington football team from 2015 to 2019. 19:20 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Next, we will hear from Rachel Engelson, who started as an intern for the Washington football team in 2010 and then became a Customer Service Representative, a Manager of Premium Client Services, the Director of Marketing and Client Relations, and the Director of Client Services from 2011 to 2019. 19:40 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Finally, we will hear from Emily Applegate who was a Marketing Coordinator, Premium Client Services Coordinator, and Ticket Sales Representative at the Washington Football Team from 2014 to 2015. 21:00 Melanie Coburn: At cheerleader auditions one year, Dan Snyder ordered the director of the squad to parade the ladies onto the field while he and his friends gawked from a suite through binoculars. The women were directed to turn around slowly, as if they were cattle being examined for sale. One of the women cried on the sidelines because she didn't understand what was happening. 21:30 Melanie Coburn: Over the years, it became clear that Dan Snyder and his male executives were far too interested in the cheerleaders. Eventually, Dan himself had the final say of who made the team and who got months in the calendar. Unbelievably, he requested binders of photographs for auditions and the calendar so that he could choose who to cut based on looks, not talent. One year he cut 10 veterans who otherwise would have made the team based on their skill and experience, evidently because they weren't the prettiest in his opinion. It was known as the Tyson's massacre. 22:10 Melanie Coburn: During calendar production one year, a male Executive took unedited prints off the graphic designer's desk despite my warnings to protect them. One of these compromising full size photos was one of the team's most loyal employees, and my dear friend. She's sitting next to me today. I'm still haunted by this. And at the time, there was no HR department or any reporting mechanism for this abusive behavior. 23:05 Melanie Coburn: I felt compelled to come forward publicly when I read the second shocking [Washington] Post article that revealed two lewd videos of the cheerleaders that were secretly created. I was physically ill when I read that piece. "The Good Bits" videos produced at the behest of Dan Snyder were secretly made from footage taken at our calendar shoots. We trusted the production team to capture footage and keep it safe. Little did we know they were zooming in on private parts and keeping cameras rolling during costume changes. I've cried with the women in these videos as they explain the horror of seeing themselves in what is essentially a soft porn video soundtracked to Dan Snyder's favorite bands. These women remain traumatized. 24:35 Melanie Coburn: Dan Snyder rules by fear. We've seen Dan's vindictive wrath for years, such as when he nearly bankrupted the Washington City Paper for an unflattering article. He sent private investigators to the homes of a dozen former cheerleaders last year and I got calls from these terrified women who didn't understand why PIs were showing up on their doorsteps. He offered hush money to a group of us in exchange for our silence last February, but we declined. This was offensive, and certainly felt like intimidation and witness tampering to us. 26:10 Tiffani Johnston: Hi, my name is Tiffani Johnston. I appreciate you all for taking the time to hear about the constant workplace harassment that occurred at the Washington Football Team for over two decades. I personally experienced it multiple times during my eight year tenure as both a cheerleader and a marketing manager. 26:50 Ana Nunez: Hi, my name is Ana Nunez and I worked in sales for the Washington football team for almost four years. 28:20 Tiffani Johnston: I learned on one specific occasion that when I was asked by my boss to attend a networking event, and oh to dress cute, it was actually an orchestration by him and Dan Snyder to put me in a compromising sexual situation. I learned that placing me strategically by the owner at a work dinner after this networking event was not for me to discuss business, but to allow him, Dan Snyder, to place his hand on my thigh under the table. I learned how to discreetly remove a man's unwanted hand from my thigh at a crowded dinner table at a busy restaurant to avoid a scene. I learned that job survival meant I should continue my conversation with another coworker, rather than call out Dan Snyder right then in the moment. I also learned later that evening how to awkwardly laugh when Dan Snyder aggressively pushed me towards his limo with his hand on my lower back, encouraging me to ride with him to my car. I learned how to continue to say no, even though a situation was getting more awkward, uncomfortable and physical. I learned that the only reason Dan Snyder removed his hand from my back and stop pushing me towards his limo was because his attorney intervened and said "Dan, Dan, this is a bad idea. A very bad idea, Dan." I learned that I should remove myself from Dan's grip while his attorney was distracting him. I also learned at that moment during an unspoken conversation between my boss and I that my boss was not there to look out for me. He was there to listen to any directive his boss, Dan Snyder, had given to him, at my cost. The next day I learned, when I told a senior coworker about Dan Snyder's sexual advance, that I should "not repeat this story to anyone outside this office door." That was when I also learned there was no one to go to about Dan Snyder's advance, no path to record the incident. So I learned to move on. 30:15 Tiffani Johnston: In the last couple of years, I learned that Dan Snyder, via Senior Vice President, demanded my unedited, enlarged lingerie calendar photo be sent to his office. I learned that this demand was made urgently because they knew that the graphic artists was getting ready to Photoshop my personal areas before the edited proof went before all of the senior VPs and Dan Snyder for approval. 31:40 Brad Baker: My name is Brad Baker and I worked for the Washington Football Team from 2007 to 2009 in the Video Production Department. 32:40 Brad Baker: In the early summer of 2008, a normal production meeting with the video department was wrapping up when Larry Michael, then Executive Producer of Media and one of Snyder's top lieutenants, asked me and two other male producers to stay behind and shut the door. The female members of the department were dismissed. Larry Michael told us that the owner had a special project for us and needed us to edit together a video of the good bits from our cheerleader calendar video shoot. It wasn't hard to put two and two together. Larry Michael, one of Snyder's top confidants, has tasked us with producing a video for Schneider of sexually suggestive footage of cheerleaders, obviously unbeknownst to any of the women involved. One of the senior producers said he'd take care of it and later on, while passing through the editing suite, I saw several images on both the editing monitor and the monitor of our tape deck that featured the cheerleaders posing for their photoshoot, but it was like outtakes, and their breasts and pubic areas were exposed. It became crystal clear that my worst suspicions were true. The video department had been told to edit together lewd footage of the cheerleaders at the request of Dan Snyder. 34:30 Brad Baker: The NFL has refused to release the report of the Wilkinson investigation, even though myself and over 100 other employees were asked by the League to speak to the Wilkinson firm. We all participated because we thought the NFL wanted to know the truth. We believe that the toxic workplace culture and the serious harm it caused would finally become public and that the investigation would end with some kind of report. I mean, they were able to release a report that was 243 pages long...243 pages long...on the PSIs of footballs, the pounds per square inch of footballs. Surely, surely, women being sexually harassed and lewd outtakes videos of female employees created without their consent could muster up some kind of written report right 43:40 Rachel Engelson: I was only 24 and the man who sexually harassed me was old enough to be my father. And he also was considered the voice of the team in the public sphere. So to me, the power that he held in his position and his close personal relationship with Daniel Snyder was enough for me to reconsider anything. And at the time, I didn't know and realize that 55% of victims experienced retaliation after speaking up or making a claim. I still decided to tell my boss about my harasser's public comments about my appearance, his unwanted kisses on the cheek, and emails about special gifts he expected from me. When I told my boss, we agreed that nothing would happen if I reported it to the person who was supposedly running HR at that point. And so my boss called my harasser on the phone. Mind you, we were in two different locations. I was in Maryland and he was in Virginia, so this had to be done via phone call. I was in the room when my boss called him to tell him to leave me alone. And it's a memory I'll never forget, because I distinctly remember hearing my harasser yell through the phone, "what the fuck is she thinking?" and I just kind of muted everything after that. So fearing further harassment and retaliation, I took to hiding from him at public events. I strategically would place myself between colleagues so he couldn't get near me. And I just felt humiliated to have to hide in plain sight in front of all of my colleagues, my clients, and I was just so frustrated that I had to avoid company functions for fear that I would experience sexual harassment again. And most of all, it made me feel worthless. All the hard work I put into my work and the team and I was reduced to my appearance and not my value as an employee. The second time I decided to report harassment was with the arrival of a new executive team, similar to Ana, that was specifically hired to help change the business. I told them about the public comments about my appearance, the unwanted kisses on the cheek, the email, as well as the time at training camp, I was sexually assaulted by the same man that I had previously reported. Those executives were appalled at my treatment and had good intentions to affect change, but they were all fired within six months of reporting this. And after they were fired, and this was reportedly because the old guard at the Washington football team did not want change, I just felt like I had zero protection. I didn't want to go back to avoiding people, clients, events, and even my own job, to keep away from my harasser. So I resigned from my position without another job lined up so I wouldn't have to deal with this. 48:35 Emily Applegate: My name is Emily Applegate. I began working for the Washington Football Team exactly eight years ago as of tomorrow. While my time with the team was short, my experiences there have altered the structure of my entire life. 49:10 Emily Applegate: On a daily basis, I was sexually harassed by my direct boss, the Chief Marketing Officer of the team. Every day, I was forced into uncomfortable conversations about my body and about my appearance. I was told to wear tight outfits to events, so clients had something to look at. I was asked invasive questions about my dating life, specifically if I was interested in older men, because my boss was significantly older than me. I was told I wasn't allowed to wear flat shoes because he liked the way my body looked better when I was in high heels. My photograph was taken without my permission and passed to other executives throughout the team by my boss. 50:20 Emily Applegate: To address the most common question that I get, "why didn't you report to Human Resources?" I didn't report to Human Resources because Dan Snyder created a culture where this behavior was accepted and encouraged. 53:35 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): July 1, 2021, the NFL issued a press release announcing the outcome of its investigation into the Washington football team stating and I quote, "none of the managers or executives identified as having engaged in this conduct is still employed at the club." 54:10 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Is the NFL's statement that wrongdoers have been removed from the Washington Football Team accurate? Tiffani Johnston: Absolutely not. It all started from the top with Dan Snyder, every day, on every single issue. 55:05 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Miss Johnston, I received a letter dated today from Jason Friedman, a former Vice President who worked for the Washington football team for over 20 years, and here is the letter. He was apparently with you the night that Dan Snyder personally harassed you. And here's what he said. He has never told his story publicly before and I want to quote now from his letter. He says "I witnessed Dan Snyder grab the arm of my coworker, Tiffany Johnston, and attempt to pull her into his limousine. This took place over a dinner in Washington DC. I was shocked. Thankfully, Tiffany was able to quickly pull away." 57:35 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): The proper venue to explore these types of claims is in the courtroom, not before this committee. To my knowledge, there's no pending litigation regarding the events we've heard discussed today, nor does this committee have legislative jurisdiction over this issue. It concerns me that this committee is choosing to spend its limited time having this discussion on the NFL and second guessing decisions when there are multiple Biden-caused catastrophes that desperately need our attention and oversight. And the witnesses here have begged for us to do something and nothing is going to happen as a result of this committee. That's cruel to these people. 1:06:50 Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC): What do you want us to do? What should Congress do? I can't legislate bad behavior to stop it. Just quickly, what would you do. 1:09:05 Emily Applegate: Thank you for asking this question, actually, because I think it's very important due to the fact that multiple members of the committee has now said that this is not the appropriate venue for us to be sharing the story and that we shouldn't be in the courtroom, things like that. You guys have the opportunity to take this issue on, pass legislation that would help other employees throughout the United States be able to report so they have that opportunity to be in the courtroom, and not only the opportunity to be in the courtroom, but then also to find some justice, because I think we can all agree that a lot of people go through the criminal justice system, and they never see any type of justice when it comes to sexual harassment or sexual assault. So until those two things are taken more seriously by Congress, then nothing is going to happen. But that's why we're here today to ask you to do your job and pass those legislation laws. 1:09:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): To my dear colleagues on the other side, I just want to point out that we legislate the rules, regulations, and laws that govern workplace safety, as well as non disclosure agreement laws and so forth. 1:15:05 Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM): Mr. Chair, this hearing is a farce. And we should be looking at inflation, the economy, Afghanistan, the border crisis and so many other issues that are important to our nation and to our constituents. Instead, we are spending time looking at a single business, investigating it for things that happened a decade ago. And let me restate again the owners of the team fired those responsible. In fact, the owners paid the largest fine ever imposed by the NFL and was suspended indefinitely from operations. This roundtable is ridiculous and it is an abuse of power. 1:35:50 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): You might be aware that part of the reason that the NFL is such a profitable business is that Congress approved legislation in 1961 that allowed an antitrust exemption where professional football teams could pull together when negotiating radio and television contracts. They also receive lucrative federal tax exemptions and taxpayer dollars in the hundreds of millions to build football stadiums that make them billions. Do you believe Congress should be in the business of protecting an organization that puts the interests of billionaire owners above hundreds of women who experienced harassment and abuse? And do you think that those benefits, that we should consider revoking them if they do not make changes to ensure that you have protections when it comes to human resources, sexual assault accountability, making sure that there is an equitable and safe workplace for their employees? 1:41:35 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Miss Coburn in your op ed, you mentioned that after the secret "good bits" videos hit the news that you and 40 or so other cheerleader alumni came together and some of you were able to mediate a settlement. Were those who settled, were they barred from going to court because of a forced arbitration agreement? Do you know? Melanie Coburn: Yes, many of when those videos were uncovered, that's when I came out publicly. I had the strength and courage to organize them. And yes, they all, they they got together and there was a, you know, mediation and there was a settlement and along with that settlement, they were forced to sign NDAs. 1:45:10 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): Congress can do a lot about this. Next week, all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who aren't here now could vote for the bill by Cheri Bustos that is going to require that no NDAs can be forced upon employees for sexual harassment or sexual assault. That would go a long way. We could also investigate the tax exempt status of the National Football League. We gave them that tax exempt status. Evidently, there was $8 billion received last year that was then divided up among the various teams to the tune of about $250 million a team. 1:50:10 Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL): We have a responsibility here of regulating, specifically, the United States economy when it comes to interstate commerce, to regulating our borders, to actually making sure we coin sound money, that we appropriate for the necessary functions of government. But one of the things that the Constitution of these United States actually precludes us from doing is interfering directly in the affairs of individual businesses, no matter how abhorrent they may be. Now, if there's criminality involved, then that is where the justice system, specifically in this case the civil system, takes those matters. December 18, 2022 @TheGhettoGronk on Twitter Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD267: The Monopoly Powers of Live Nation/Ticketmaster

29 januari 2023 | 103 min

Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged over a decade ago and Congress is concerned - for good reason - that the company is exerting monopoly powers over the live event industry. In this episode, learn how the merger was allowed to happen in the first place, the problems that industry participants and competitors are having with the company, and what Congress is thinking of doing about it. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! We're Not Wrong Live Show Wednesday, March 1 | 8:00 PM PSTPianoFight Main Stage San Francisco Background Sources Event Ticketing Market Apr 12, 2018. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Live Nation Overview Open Secrets. Open Secrets. Ticketmaster August Brown. Jan 24, 2023. The Seattle Times. Taylor Swift Ashley Cullins. Dec 5, 2022. The Hollywood Reporter. Caitlin Huston. Nov 18, 2022. The Hollywood Reporter. Caitlin Huston. Nov 17, 2022. The Hollywood Reporter. Bad Bunny Maria Abi-Habib. Dec 16, 2022. The New York Times. Dylan Smith. Apr 15, 2021. Digital Music News. BTS Dave Clark. Mar 3, 2022. Ticket News. Fengyen Chiu. Oct 11, 2021. Republic World. Adele Dave Clark. Dec 8, 2021. Ticket News. Pixies Steve Knopper. Nov 1, 2010. Wired. Bruce Sprintsteen Alex Young. Nov 18, 2022. Consequence Sound. Daniel Kreps. Feb 4, 2009. Rolling Stone. Pearl Jam Shawn Garrett. Nov 17, 2022. KIRO 7 News. Eric Boehlert. Dec 28, 1995. Rolling Stone. Reuters. Jul 1, 1994. The New York Times. Ticketmaster Scalper Program Dave Clark. Jul 8, 2021. Ticket News. Rachel Houlihan et al. Oct 18, 2018. CBC News. Dave Seglins et al. Sep 19, 2018. CBC News. Antitrust Policy and Enforcement Doha Mekki. Jan 26, 2023. U.S. Department of Justice. John Kwoka. Dec 19, 2018. Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Jul 5, 2007. Sheppard Mullin. Alan S. Middleton. Jul 3, 2007. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Richard B. Blackwell. March 1972 *13(3). William & Mary Law Review. Mergers and Monopoly Power Open Markets Institute. Live Nation-Ticketmaster Merger U.S. Department of Justice. (July 2010) (January 2020) (January 2020) Kroger-Albertsons Merger Julie Creswell. Jan 23, 2023. The New York Times. Russell Redman. Dec 6, 2022. Winsight Grocery Business. Laws Bills Sponsor: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Audio Sources January 24, 2023 Senate Committee on the Judiciary Witnesses: Joe Berchtold, President and Chief Financial Officer, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Jack Groetzinger, Chief Executive Officer, SeatGeek, Inc. Jerry Mickelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, Jam Productions, LLC Sal Nuzzo, Senior Vice President, The James Madison Institute Vice President for Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute Clyde Lawrence, Singer-songwriter, Lawrence February 24, 2009 Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Witnesses: Irving Azoff, Chief Executive Officer, Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. Jerry Mickelson, Chairman and Executive Vice President, JAM Productions Michael Rapino, President and Chief Executive Officer, Live Nation, Inc. David A. Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress Action Fund Seth Hurwitz, Co-Owner, I.M.P. Productions and 9:30 Club YouTube Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD266: Contriving January 6th

6 januari 2023 | 135 min

The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Executive Producers: Michael Constantino, Shelley Stracener, Daniel Slaughter, and Christine Brendle Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Final Committee Report 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. The Federalist Society. Trump and Georgia Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the statement from the President? Greg Jacob: So we were shocked and disappointed, because whoever had written and put that statement out, it was categorically untrue. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob, did you go to the Vice President's residences on the morning of January 6? Greg Jacob: Yes. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Did the Vice President have a call with the President that morning? Greg Jacob: He did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): The President had several family members with him in the Oval that morning for that call. I'd like to show you what they and others told the Select Committee about that call. Eric Herschmann: When I got in, somebody called me and said that the family and others were in the Oval and do I want to come up? So I went upstairs. Ivanka Trump: It wasn't a specific, formal discussion. It was very sort of loose and casual. When I entered the office the second time he was on the telephone with who I later found out to be was the Vice President. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Could you hear the Vice President or only hear the President's end? Eric Herschmann: I could only hear the President's end. Ivanka Trump: The conversation was pretty heated. Eric Herschmann: I think till it became somewhat in a louder tone, I don't think anyone was paying attention to it initially. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did you hear any part of the phone call, even if just this the end that the President was speaking from? Nicholas Luna: I did, yes. January 6 Committee Lawyer: All right. And what do you hear? Nicholas Luna: So as I was dropping off the note, my memory, I remember hearing the word "wimp." He called him a wimp. I don't remember if he said "You are a wimp," "You'll be a wimp." Wimp is the word I remember. January 6 Committee Lawyer: It's also been reported that the President said to the Vice President something to the effect that "you don't have the courage to make a hard decision." Gen. Keith Kellogg: Worse. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like that, yeah. Like "you're not tough enough to make the call." Ivanka Trump: It was a different tone than I'd heard him take with the Vice President before. Nicholas Luna: Something to the effect, this is, the wording's wrong...."I made the wrong decision four or five years ago." January 6 Committee Lawyer: And the word that she relayed to, that the President called the Vice President. I apologize for being impolite, but do you remember what she said her father called him? Julie Radford: The P word. Former President Donald Trump: I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become President and you are the happiest people. And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. And if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country. And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify, but the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn't listen to the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and the stupid people that he's listening to. Trump Supporter: It's real simple. Pence betrayed us. Which apparently everybody knew he was going to and the President mentioned it, like five times when he talked. You can go back and watch the President's video. January 6th Attendee: I'm telling you what, I'm hearing that Pence, I heard that Pence just caved? Is that true? I'm hearing reports that Pence caved. I'm telling you, if Pence caved, we're gonna drag motherfuckers through the streets. You fucking politicians are gonna get fucking drug through the streets. January 6th Streamer: Yeah, I guess the hope is that there's such a show of force here that Pence will decide to just do the right thing according Trump. January 6th Crowd: Where is Pence? Bring out Pence! [chanting] Hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Although the President's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, has refused to testify before this committee, Mr. Meadows aide Ben Williamson, and White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews testified that Mr. Meadows went to the dining room near the Oval Office to tell the President about the violence at the Capitol before the President's 2:24pm tweet. Narrator: President Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Our investigation found that immediately after the president's 2:24pm tweet, the crowds both outside the capitol and inside the Capitol surged. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): The crowds inside the Capitol were able to overwhelm the law enforcement presence and the Vice President was quickly evacuated from his ceremonial Senate office to a secure location within the Capitol Complex. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Jacob, immediately before you and the Vice President were evacuated to a secure location within the Capitol, you hit send on an email to John Eastman explaining why his legal theory about the Vice President's role was wrong. You ended your email by stating that, quote, "thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege." And Dr. Eastman replied, and this is hard to believe, but his reply back to you was "the siege is because you and your boss," presumably referring to the Vice President, United States, "did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened." Mr. Jacob, later that day, you wrote again to Dr. Eastman. In that email, you wrote, and I quote, "did you advise the President that in your professional judgment the Vice President DOES NOT have the power to decide things unilaterally?" And you ended that email saying, "it does not appear that the President ever got the memo." Dr. Eastman then replied, "he's been so advised" and he ends him email with quote, "but you know him. Once he gets something in his head, it's hard to get him to change course," close quote. Greg Jacob: Late that evening, after the Joint Session had been reconvened, Mr. Eastman emailed me to point out that, in his view, the Vice President's speech to the nation violated the Electoral Count Act, that the Electoral Count Act had been violated because the debate on Arizona had not been completed in two hours. Of course, it couldn't be, since there was an intervening riot of several hours. And the speeches that the majority and minority leaders had been allowed to make also violated the Electoral Count Act because they hadn't been counted against the debate time. And then he implored me, "now that we have established that the Electoral Count Act isn't so sacrosanct as you have made it out to be, I implore you one last time, can the Vice President, please do what we've been asking him to do these last two days, suspend the Joint Session, send it back to the States." Eric Herschmann: The day after, Eastman asked me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something, potentially for appeal. And I said to him, "Are you out of your effing mind?" Right? I said, "I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on: 'orderly transition.' I don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth, no matter what, other than orderly transition. Repeat those words to me." January 6 Committee Lawyer: And what did he said? Eric Herschmann: Eventually, he said "orderly transition." I said, "Good, John. Now I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it." And then I hung up on him. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): In fact, just a few days later, Dr. Eastman emailed Rudy Giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a Presidential pardon. Dr. Eastman did not receive his presidential pardon. June 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: William Stepien, Former Trump Campaign Manager Chris Stirewalt, Former Fox News Political Editor Benjamin Ginsberg, Election Attorney BJay Pak, Former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Al Schmidt, Former City Commissioner of Philadelphia Matt Morgan, Former General Counsel, Trump Campaign Clips 10:15 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 2, the General Counsel of the Trump campaign, Matthew Morgan, this is the campaign's chief lawyer, summarized what the campaign had concluded weeks earlier, that none of the arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change the outcome of the election. Matt Morgan: Generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud, maladministration, abuse or irregularities, if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinative and I think everyone assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, Mark Short, myself and Greg Jacob, was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinative. 14:50 Former President Donald Trump: You know, the things with bundling and all of the things that are happening with votes by mail, where 1000s of votes are gathered, and I'm not gonna say which party does it but 1000s of votes are gathered and they come in and they're dumped in a location and then all of a sudden you lose elections that you think you're going to win. Former President Donald Trump: The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. The only way we're going to lose this election. Former President Donald Trump: This is going to be a fraud like you've never seen. Did you see what's going on? Take a look at West Virginia mailman selling the ballots. They're being sold. They're being dumped in rivers. This is a horrible thing for our country. This is not as no this is not going to end well. 29:40 Chris Stirewalt: In the 40 or 50 years, let's say, that Americans have increasingly chosen to vote by mail or early or absentee, Democrats prefer that method of voting more than Republicans do. So basically, in every election, Republicans win election day, and Democrats win the early vote. And then you wait and start counting. And it depends on which ones you count first, but usually, it's election day votes that get counted first, and you see the Republican shoot ahead. And then the process of bailing and binding and unbinding all those mail in votes, in some states, like Pennsylvania, refuse to count the votes first. So you have to wait for all of that to come in. So in every election, and certainly a national election, you expect to see the Republican with a lead, but it's not really a lead. When you put together a jigsaw puzzle, it doesn't matter which piece you put in first, it ends up with the same image. So for us, who cares? But that's because no candidate had ever tried to avail themselves of this quirk. In the election counting system, we had gone to pains, and I'm proud of the pains we went to, to make sure that we were informing viewers that this was going to happen because of the Trump campaign. And the President had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this anomaly. And we knew it was going to be bigger, because the percentage of early votes was higher, right? We went from about 45% of the votes being early and absentee to, because of the pandemic, that increased by about 50%. So we knew it would be longer. We knew it would be more. So we wanted to keep telling viewers, "Hey, look, the number that you see here is sort of irrelevant because it's only a small percentage of these votes." 1:06:05 Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I was somewhat demoralized because I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff he has, you know, lost contact with -- he's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff. On the other hand, you know, when I went into this and would, you know, tell them how crazy some of these allegations were, there was never, there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts are. 1:10:25 Jeff Rosen: There were instances where the President would say, people are telling me this, or I've heard this, or I saw on television, you know, this, this impropriety in Atlanta or Pennsylvania or something, and we were in a position to say, people have already looked at that and we know that you're getting bad information that that's, that's not correct. It's been demonstrated to be incorrect from our point of view. 1:14:55 Richard Donoghue: I tried to, again put this in perspective and to try to put it in very clear terms to the President. And I said something to the effect of "Sir we've done dozens of investigations hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We've looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We're doing our job. Much of the info you're getting is false." June 9, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards Nick Quested, Filmmaker and Documentarian Clips Bill Bar: I had three discussions with the President that I can recall. One was on November 2, one was on December 1, and one was on December 14. And I've been through sort of the give and take of those discussions. And in that context, I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the President was bullshit. Robert Schornack: What really made me want to come was the fact that, you know, I had supported Trump all that time. I did believe, you know that the election was being stolen. And Trump asked us to come. Eric Barber: He personally asked for us to come to DC that day. And I thought, for everything he's done for us, if that's the only thing he's gonna ask me, I'll do it. Former President Donald Trump: We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. Interviewer: Do you recall President Trump mentioning going to the Capitol during his speech? Eric Barber: Oh, yeah. So that's one of my disappointments. He said he was gonna go go with us that he was gonna be there. John Wright: I know why I was there. And that's because he called me there. And he laid out what is happening in our government. He laid it out. George Meza: I remember Donald Trump telling people to be there. Right. I mean, to support. Interviewer: You mentioned that the President asked you. Do you remember a specific message? Daniel Herendeen: Basically, he asked for us to come to DC and big things are gonna happen. Matthew Walter: What got me interested is he said I have something very important to say on January 6, or something like that. That's what got me interested to be there. Robert Schornack: You know, Trump has only asked me for two things. He asked me for my vote and he asked me to come on January 6. May 12, 2021 House Committee on Oversight and Reform Witnesses: Chris Miller, Former Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Contee, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department Clips 40:52 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th, did President Trump as the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces call you during the January 6 attack to ensure the capital was being secured? Mr. Miller? Chris Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the president to fulfill my constitutional duties. 3:12:18 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Were you ordered to delay deployment of troops? Chris Miller: 110% Absolutely not. No, that is not the case. February 23, 2021 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration Witnesses: Robert Contee, Acting Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department Steven Sund, Former Chief of the United States Capitol Police Clips 39:21 Robert Contee: MPD is prohibited by federal law from entering the Capitol or its grounds to patrol, make arrests or served warrants without the consent request of the Capitol Police board. 39:32 Robert Contee: The President of the United States, not the Mayor of the District of Columbia, controls the DC National Guard. 1:05:36 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Mr. Sund, you stated in your written testimony that you first made a request for the Capitol Police board to declare an emergency and authorized National Guard support on Monday January 4th, and that request was not granted. Steven Sund: That is correct, ma’am. 1:05:47 Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN): Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police corps resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard. Would you agree with that? That’s one of the things we want to look at. Steven Sund: Yes, ma’am. 1:07:23 Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN): Mr. Sund your written testimony states that you had no authority to request the assistance of the National Guard without an emergency declaration of the Capitol Police board. On what rule, regulation or authority did you base that view? Steven Sund: I’d have to go back and look at the specific rule, but it’s a standard. It’s a standing rule that we have. I cannot request the National Guard without a declaration of emergency from the Capitol Police board. It’s kind of interesting because it’s very similar to the fact you know, I can’t even give my men and women cold water on an excessively hot day without a declaration of emergency. It’s just a process that’s in place. 2:39:22 Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): Have you ever held a drill to respond this situation where a crowd pushes past the exterior barricades? Steven Sund: Not this level of situation no, sir. Executive Producer Recommended Sources Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD265: Policing FTX

23 december 2022 | 81 min

FTX, at one point the world’s third largest cryptocurrency exchange, went bankrupt, causing the entire cryptocurrency industry to crash. In this episode, hear highlights from Congressional testimony that will explain how FTX was able to grow so large while committing blatant fraud, how it’s possible that the government didn’t know and didn’t do anything to stop it, and hear about a Senate bill that’s branded as a solution but has concerning flaws of it’s own. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes What is FTX? Timothy Smith. Dec 22, 2022. Investopedia. Crypto Regulation Kyle Barr. Dec 1, 2022. Gizmodo. David Dayen. Nov 23, 2022. The American Prospect. David Dayen. Nov 17, 2022. The American Prospect. David Dayen. Nov 10, 2022. The American Prospect. Tom Emmer et al. Mar 16, 2022. emmer.house.gov. Lead-up to FTX Collapse Elizabeth Napolitano. Nov 9, 2022. NBC News. Tom Wilson and Angus Berwick. Nov 8, 2022. Reuters. Tracy Wang and Oliver Knight. Nov 6, 2022. Tracy Wang and Oliver Knight. Nov 6, 2022. CoinDesk. Ian Allison. Nov 2, 2022. CoinDesk. Seth. P Rosebrock, Assistant General Counsel, Enforcement, FDIC. Aug 18, 2022. FDIC. Tom Emmer André Beganski. Dec 11, 2022. Decrypt. Tony Romm. Dec 8, 2022. The Washington Post. Emily Brooks and Mychael Schnell. Nov 15, 2022. The Hill. FTX Collapse Shane Shifflett, Rob Barry, and Coulter Jones. Dec 5, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. Alexander Osipovich. Dec 3, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. David Gura. Nov 23, 2022. NPR. Steven Zeitchik. Nov 20, 2022. The Washington Post. Nov 17, 2022. PACER. Angus Berwick. Nov 11, 2022. Reuters. Jacob Bogage and Tory Newmyer. Nov 11, 2022. The Washington Post. Vicky Ge Huang, Alexander Osipovich, and Patricia Kowsmann. Nov 11, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. Lobbying and Campaign Donations Tory Newmyer and Steven Zeitchik. Dec 1, 2022. The Washington Post. Tory Newmyer and Peter Whoriskey. Nov 28, 2022. The Washington Post. Tony Romm. Nov 17, 2022. The Washington Post. Paul Kiernan. Nov 14, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. Brian Schwartz. Nov 14, 2022. CNBC. Tory Newmyer. Nov 12, 2022. The Washington Post. Luis Melgar et al. Oct 24, 2022. The Washington Post. Freddy Brewster. Aug 12, 2022. Los Angeles Times. Aftermath of the FTX Collapse Dec 12, 2022. Reuters. Emily Flitter, David Yaffe-Bellany and Matthew Goldstein. Dec 7, 2022. The New York Times. Alexander Osipovich, Alexander Saeedy and Alexander Gladstone. Dec 4, 2022. Mar 10, 2022. Cryptopedia. December 13 Hearing Dec 8, 2022. House Financial Services Committee. House Financial Services Committee. Sam Bankman-Fried Indictment Dec 13, 2022. The New York Times. Bills Audio Sources December 13, 2022 House Committee on Financial Services Witness: John J. Ray III, CEO, FTX Group Clip Transcripts Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO): Have you read the full testimony that was planned by our missing guest [Sam Bankman-Fried]? John Ray I have not read his full testimony. Some pieces of it been relayed to me, but I've not read it. I've not read one word of it actually. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO): Yeah, I don't know him personally and probably don't want to. But this testimony is so disrespectful. I mean, there's not a person up here would like to show this to their children. In line two of this message, he says, and I quote, "I would like to start out by firmly stating under oath...* And yeah, I can't even say it publicly. The next two words, absolutely insulting. This is the Congress of the United States. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): So when when customers deposited funds into their FTX accounts, where did the cash go? John Ray: Well, sometimes the money wasn't deposited in the FTX account it was sent to Alameda to begin with. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH): It was misdirected from from the start straight to Alameda. John Ray: There was certainly some time period where there's no bank account at .com and then ultimately, if you look at the structure of this, Alameda is essentially a customer on that .com exchange, and effectively, you know, borrowed money from or just transferred money from FTX customers to take its own positions on the Alameda hedge fund. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC): So Alameda research and the venture capital business, what did Alameda research do? John Ray: Essentially made crypto investments, engaged in margin trading, took long and short positions in crypto, essentially invested in crypto. But of course, we now know also invested in over $5 billion of other assets which are in a variety of sectors. Patrick McHenry (R-NC): Can you describe the differences between the FTX.com and FTX.us silos? John Ray: Yes. Very simply FTX.us was for US citizens who wanted to trade crypto; FTX.com, US citizens were not allowed to trade on that exchange. That's very simple. And I would make one other comment, which is separate apart from any of those two silos. It was ledger x, which is a regulated entity regulated by the CFTC, solvent and separate from the FTX.us silo. Patrick McHenry (R-NC): Okay, and that is a distinct silo, that's a distinct company? John Ray: That is a distinct company within the US silo, yes. Patrick McHenry (R-NC): Okay. Patrick McHenry (R-NC):: What was the relationship between FTX.com and FTX.us? Was is there a distinction between the two? John Ray: There was a public distinction between the two. What we're seeing now is that the crypto assets for both ftx.com and for FTX.us were housed in the same database. It's called the AWS system, which is just an acronym for Amazon Web Services. It was all housed in the same web format. Patrick McHenry (R-NC):: And is that distinct from Alameda's assets? John Ray: Yes, it is. John Ray: In essence you know, Alameda was a user, effectively a customer, of FTX.com. That's how it was essentially structured. John Ray: There was no audit at Alameda, no audit at the venture silo. There was audit at the US silo and also audit at the the .com silo. I can't speak to the integrity or quality of those audits. We're reviewing, obviously, the books and records. And as I've said earlier, you know, much of those books and records were maintained on a fairly unsophisticated ledger ledger which works workbooks. John Ray: It's an extensive list, it really crosses the entire spectrum of the company, from lack of lists of bank accounts, hundreds of bank accounts dispersed all over the world, lack of a complete list of employees and their functions by group or name, extensive use of independent contractors as opposed to employees, lack of insurance that you'd normally would see in certain businesses, either inadequate insurance or complete gaps in insurance. For example, the Alameda silo had no insurance whatsoever. So those are I mean, there's, the list goes on and on. You know, we could spend all day on them. John Ray: While many things are unknown at this stage, we're at a very preliminary stage, many questions remain, we know the following. First customer assets at ftx.com were commingled with assets from the Alameda trading platform. That much is clear. Second, Alameda used client funds to engage in margin trading, which exposed customer funds to massive losses. Third, the FTX group went on a spending binge in 2021 and 2022, during which $5 billion was spent on a myriad of businesses and investments, many of which may only be worth a fraction of what was paid for them. Fourth, loans and other payments were made to insiders in excess of $1.5 billion. Fifth, Alameda's business model as a market maker required funds to be deployed to various third party exchanges, which were inherently unsafe and further exacerbated by the limited protections offered in certain of those foreign jurisdictions. John Ray: I accepted the position of Chief Executive Officer of FTX in the early morning hours of November 11 [2022]. It immediately became clear to me that chapter 11 was the best course available to preserve any remaining value of FTX. Therefore, my first act as CEO was authorized the chapter 11 filings. John Ray: It's virtually unlimited in terms of the lack of controls: no centralized records on banking, no daily reconciliations of crypto assets, silos where there's no insurance, inadequate insurance, no independent board, no safeguards that limit, who controls and asset. So senior management literally could get access to any of the accounts in any of the silos. No separateness between customer money and other customer money or other other assets. It's virtually unlimited in terms of the lack of controls. And that's really the point of the unprecedent comment. I've just never seen anything like it in 40 years of doing restructuring work and corporate corporate legal work. It's just a dearth of of information. John Ray: But again, users had multiple accounts. For example, if they had a different trading position, they may have opened multiple accounts. We know it's a big number. It's in the millions on the customer accounts, and we know it's several billion dollars in losses. Assigning those losses to customer accounts will be our next challenge. John Ray: The FTX group's collapse appears to stem from absolute concentration of control in the hands of a small group of grossly inexperienced and unsophisticated individuals who failed to implement virtually any of the systems or controls that are necessary for a company entrusted with other people's money or assets. Some of the unacceptable management practices identified so far include the use of computer infrastructure that gave individuals and senior management access to systems that stored customers' assets without security controls to prevent them from redirecting those assets; the storing of certain private keys to access hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto assets without effective security controls or encryption; the ability of Alameda to borrow funds held at FTX.com to be utilized for its own trading or investments without any effective limits whatsoever; the commingling of assets; the lack of complete documentation for transactions involving nearly 500 separate investments made with FTX group funds and assets. In the absence of audited or reliable financial statements, the lack of personnel and financial and risk management functions, and the absence of independent governance throughout the FTX group, a fundamental challenge we face is there in many respects we are starting from near zero in terms of the corporate infrastructure and record keeping that one would expect in a multibillion dollar corporation. John Ray: The FTX group is unusual in the sense that, you know, I've done probably a dozen large scale bankruptcies over my career, including Enron, of course. Every one of those entities had some financial problem or another, they have some characteristics that are in common. This one is unusual. And it's unusual in the sense that literally, you know, there's no record keeping whatsoever. It's the absence of record keeping. Employees would communicate, you know, invoicing and expenses on on Slack, which is essentially a way of communicating for chat rooms. They use QuickBooks, a multibillion dollar company using QuickBooks. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO): QuickBooks? John Ray: QuickBooks. Nothing against QuickBooks, it's very nice tool, just not for a multibillion dollar company. There's no independent board, right? We had one person really controlling this. No independent board. That's highly unusual in the size company this is. And it's made all the more complex because we're not dealing with, you know, widgets or, you know, something that's tangible. We're dealing with with with crypto, and the technological issues are made worse when you're dealing with an asset such as crypto. John Ray: I've just never seen an utter lack of record keeping. Absolutely no internal controls whatsoever. John Ray: The operation of Alameda really depended based on the way it was operated for the use of customer funds. That's the major breakdown here of funds from ftx.com, which was the exchange for non US citizens, those funds were used at Alameda to make investments and other disbursements. John Ray: There's no distinction whatsoever. The owners of the company could really run free reign across all four silos. John Ray: The loans that were given to Mr. Bankman-Fried, not just one loan it was numerous loans, some of which were documented by individual promissory notes. There's no description of what the purpose of the loan was. In one instance, he signed both as the issuer of the loan, as well as the recipient of the loan. But we have no information at this time as to what the purpose or the use of those funds were. And that is part of our investigation. John Ray: At the end of the day, we're not going to be able to recover all the losses here. Money was spent that we'll never get back. There will be losses on the international side. We're hopeful on the US side. He'll answer to others related to what happened here. Our job is just to find the assets and try to get customers their money back as quickly as possible. John Ray: Essentially, they had two exchanges that allowed users to trade crypto, and then there was the hedge fund. It's as simple as that. The users were allowed to make a variety of investments. They had a more expansive ability to trade crypto if you are a non-U.S. citizen on the .com exchange, but I know what's been described publicly is very complex. It is to some extent, but essentially, you had two exchanges, and you had a hedge fund. Inside both the US silos I've mentioned and inside the silos for .com there were regulated entities. We have regulated entities that are, for example, in Japan that are solvent, we had a regulated entity, ledger X, that was solvent. Those are sort of distinct from the other basic operations that we had, which are the two exchanges. John Ray: The principal issue that the company is facing in the crypto area, and from a technology perspective, it is different from the other bankruptcies because it's not a plane, not a boat. It's this crypto asset and it has inherently some difficulties. You know, the assets can be taken or lost. We have assets there in what are called Hot wallets, and those are in cold wallets. Hot wallets are very vulnerable to to hacking. If you've done any looking on the internet, you'll find that hacking is almost ordinary course in this business sector. They're very, lots of vulnerability to the wallets. So that's this company, unfortunately had a very, very challenging record here. You know, for some transfers there was no pathway for it. Our keys aren't stored in a centralized location. We don't know where all of our wallets are. Passwords were sometimes kept in just plain text format. So this company was sort of uniquely positioned to fail. John Ray: So funds were taken from customers, funds were invested, trading losses incurred in Alameda and then funds were deployed, that will never be valued at the same dollar amount. There was over $5 billion of investments made. Certainly, there's some value there and we'll try to get that value and sell those assets. But oftentimes, even when he made those sorts of investments, whether it was directly or through others in management, sometimes he would do that really without any pro forma or any valuation. Not really quite sure how some of the purchase price numbers were derived. So it gives you a sort of worry obviously, that the purchases were overvalued so there's a concern there as well. John Ray: Alameda was a customer, if you will, of the exchange and it's through that customer relationship, plus other arrangements, that allowed Alameda to borrow those funds, and then pick positions on the exchange like anyone, you know, who would hedge an asset in the market. He had unusually large positions, of course, and sometimes they were wrong in those positions, and they resulted in big losses. But ultimately, the commingling issue is the same in a different issue. He took the money from FTX to cover those positions and ultimately, when customers went to get their money back from .com there was a run on the bank. John Ray: The Alameda fund, well that's just the fund that drew resources from the exchanges, so it's really separate, it was not for customers per se, it was just simply a hedge fund. John Ray: For structural purposes and just for ease of presentation, we tried to take the over 100 entities and we put those in four silos. To demystify that, it's very simple. There was a U.S. silo, which was the FTX.us exchange for US investors. There was an international exchange called FTX.com. Again, for non-U.S. persons that invested in crypto. There was Alameda, which is purely a crypto hedge fund, which made other investments, venture capital type investments. Then there's a fourth entity which was purely investments. And although our investigation is not complete, those investments were most likely made with either Alameda money or money that originally came from ftx.com. But that fourth silo is just purely investments Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC): And who owned those four silos? John Ray: All those entities are owned or controlled by Sam Bankman-Fried. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA): Now I've heard from some on the other side criticizing the SEC and in July in this room I criticized the Head of Enforcement at the SEC for not going after crypto exchanges. But the fact is that without objection I'd like to put on the record a letter signed by 19 Republican members designed to push back on the SEC, a brushback pitch if you're familiar with baseball, attacking the SEC for paying attention to and I quote, "the purported risks of digital assets." And I'd like to put on the record without objection comments from eight members made in this room that were designed to attack the SEC as being Luddite and anti-innovation for their efforts. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): Mr. Ray, a number of their debtors in the FTX group are located in offshore jurisdictions. Will this complicate the efforts to retrieve the assets of those there? If so why? John Ray: No, I don't think it will complicate it at all. The various jurisdictions, historically in bankruptcy, and I've been in a number of cross border situations, the jurisdictions will cooperate with each other. The regulators in all these jurisdictions, I think, realize that everyone's there for a common purpose, to protect the victims and recover assets for the victims of these situations. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): How much have you been able to secure and where are most of these assets located? John Ray: We've been able to secure over a billion dollars of assets. We've secured those two cold wallets in a secure location. It's an ongoing process, though, which will take weeks and perhaps months to secure all the assets. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): Are most creditors located in the US or foreign jurisdictions. John Ray: The majority of the creditors trade through the .com silo and are outside of this jurisdiction, although there are some foreign customers that are on the US silo, and vice versa. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO): Reports suggest that ftx.com transferred more than half of its customer funds, roughly $10 billion, to Alameda research. Is that accurate, sir? John Ray: Our work is not done, we don't have exact numbers for you today, but I will say it's several billion dollars, in that range, so we know that the size of the harm was significant. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Have you seen evidence of such a cover up? Have you seen evidence that there was any independent governance of Alameda separate and apart from that of the exchange? John Ray: The operations of the FTX group were not segregated. It was really operated as one company. As a result, there's no distinction virtually, between the operations of the company and who controlled those operations. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Did FTX have sufficient risk management systems and controls to appropriately monitor any leverage the business took on and the interconnections it had with businesses, like again, Alameda. John Ray: There were virtually no internal controls and no separateness whatsoever. December 1, 2022 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Witness: Rostin Behnam, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Clip Transcripts 18:30 Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): I've said this before and I'll say it again: the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act does not -- does not -- take authority away from other financial regulators. Nor does it make the CFTC the primary crypto regulator, because crypto assets can be used in many different ways. No single financial regulator has the expertise or the authority to regulate the entire industry. 24:30 John Boozman (R-AK): Many have asked why is the Ag Committee involved in this? The Ag Committee is involved because this committee and no other committee in the Senate is responsible for the oversight of the nation's commodity markets. Bitcoin, although a crypto currency, is a commodity. It's a commodity in the eyes of the federal courts and the opinion of the SEC Chairman, there is no dispute about this. If there are exchanges where commodities are traded, be it wheat, oil, or Bitcoin, then they must be regulated. It's simply that simple. 32:45 Rostin Behnam: I have asked Congress directly for clear authority to impose our traditional regulatory regime over the digital asset commodity market. 33:00 Rostin Behnam: I have not been shy about my encouragement of bills that contemplate shared responsibility for the CFTC and the Securities Exchange Commission, where the SEC would utilize its existing authority and reporting regime requirements for all security tokens, while the CFTC would apply its market based rules for the more limited subset of commodity tokens, which do not have the same characteristics of security tokens. 41:00 Rostin Behnam: I can though share with this committee with respect to me, my team and I have taken an initial review of my calendar and what we've observed is that my team and I met with Mr. Bankman-Fried and his team. Over the past 14 months, we met 10 times in the CFTC office at their request, all in relation to this DCO this Clearinghouse application. Nine out of the 10 times we were in Washington, one was at a widely held conference in Florida earlier this year. In addition, there were two phone calls, I believe, and a number of messages, all in relation to the DCO application, providing us updates suggesting that they were answering questions from different divisions, and trying as I said, to doggedly move the application along and to get it approved. 48:00 Sen. John Boozman (R-AK): If ftx.com had been a registered U.S. exchange, would the CFTC have been able to mitigate what happened. Rostin Behnam: Senator, you know, with our current authority, the answer is now. We need the authority to get into a CFTC registered exchange, as you point out. If we had that authority, and they were registered, given what we know from the facts about conflicts of interest, commingling funds, books and records, we would have been able to prohibit it. And I would point to what we're doing with Ledger X. On a daily basis our staff is in direct communication not only with Ledger X, but the custodians themselves, able to identify customer property, and customer money. Imagine that scenario with FTX.us if we had a daily lens into the location of customer money and customer property, you can imagine, given what we've learned about what's happened with FTX, we could have certainly prohibited many of the actions that we're hearing about. 1:16:00 Rostin Behnam: In terms of regulation of cash markets, right, the spot market, we simply do not have authority to register cash market exchanges or any intermediary broker dealer entity within that structure and that's what concerns me, this is the gap. 1:59:30 Rostin Behnam: Unfortunately, when we act, it's often after the fact because the information that allows us to bring an enforcement action in digital asset cash commodity markets, is only because information is coming to us from outsiders, from referrals, from tips, from whistleblowers, and this is in stark contrast to some of the surveillance tools and examination tools that we would have if we had a comprehensive regulatory framework over digital asset commodities. 2:07:00 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): There'll be a reporter waiting in the hall -- I've already talked to her this morning -- who will ask you, "Did he ever contribute to your campaign?" I said "Oh, no, I never heard of the man." She said "You're wrong, Senator, he contributed to you." So the cryptocurrency people are active politically. And they are trying to achieve a political end here. It is their right as citizens of this country to do that. But it really calls on us to make sure that whatever we do is credible under those circumstances. 2:22:30 Rostin Behnam: I can't speak to what Mr. Bankman-Fried or anyone at FTX was thinking when they were advocating for regulation, but the remarkable thing is to think about it in the context of compliance and what we've learned about the FTX entities and just thinking about the bill that Senator Stabenow and Boozman introduced, they would have been so far out of compliance that it just wouldn't have even been possible. September 15, 2022 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Witnesses: Rostin Behnam, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Todd Phillips, Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance, Center for American Progress Shelia Warren, Chief Executive Officer, Crypto Council for Innovation Christine Parker, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, Coinbase Heath Tarbert, Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities Denelle Dixon, Chief Executive Officer, Stellar Development Foundation December 8, 2021 House Committee on Financial Services Witnesses: Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO, Circle Samuel Bankman-Fried, Founder and CEO, FTX Brian P. Brooks, CEO, Bitfury Group Charles Cascarilla, CEO and co-Founder, Paxos Trust Company Denelle Dixon, CEO and Executive Director, Stellar Development Foundation Alesia Jeanne Haas, CEO, Coinbase Inc. and CFO, Coinbase Global Inc. Clip Transcripts 23:30 Sam Bankman-Fried: We are already regulated and licensed. We have many licenses globally. Here in the United States, we are regulated by the states under the money service business and money transmitting regime, and we are regulated nationally by the CFTC where we have a DCO, a DCM, a swap execution facility, and other licensure. 1:13:30 Sam Bankman-Fried: One of the really innovative properties of cryptocurrency markets are 24/7 risk monitoring and engines. We do not have overnight risk or weekend risk or holiday risk in the same way traditional assets do, which allow risk monitoring and de risking of positions in real time to help mitigate volatility. We've been operating for a number of years with billions of dollars of open interest. We've never had customer losses, clawbacks or anything like that. Even going through periods of large movements in both directions. We store collateral from our users in a way which is not always done in the traditional financial ecosystem to backstop positions. And the last thing that I'll say is if you look at what precipitated some of the 2008 financial crisis, you saw a number of bilateral bespoke non-reported transactions happening between financial counterparties which then got repackaged and releveraged again and again and again, such that no one knew how much risk was in that system until it all fell apart. If you compare that to what happens on FTX or other major cryptocurrency venues today, there is complete transparency about the full open interest. There is complete transparency about the positions that are held. There is a robust, consistent risk framework. 1:34:00 Sam Bankman-Fried: In addition to a bunch of international licenses in the United States, we are participating in that system you referenced with the money transmitter and money service businesses license is in addition to that, however, we are also licensed by the CFTC. We have a DCO, a DCM, and other licensure from them through FTX.us derivatives and we look forward to continuing to work with them to build out our product suite. We just submitted a 800 page, I believe, proposal to them a few days ago, which we're excited to discuss and we're also happy to talk with other regulators about potential products in the United States. 2:37:00 Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN): Now it's my understanding that FTX uses surveillance trade technology akin to the technology national Securities Exchanges use to protect investors and ensure sound spot markets. What does this technology and any other tools FTX uses to protect the spot market from fraud and manipulation look like? Sam Bankman-Fried: Yeah. So, you know, like other exchanges, we do have these technologies in addition to the, you know, new customer policies that we can identify individuals associated with trades. We have surveillance for unusual trading activity. We have manual inspections of anything that you know, gets flagged either by the automated surveillance or by manual inspection. And we do this with the trading activity with deposits and withdrawals and everything else. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN): Sounds like you're doing a lot to make sure there is no fraud or other manipulation. Thank you Mr. Bankman-Fried, again, for helping us understand the extensive guardrails a cryptocurrency exchange like FTX has in place to ensure sound crypto spot markets for investors. 2:52:30 Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa): Mr. Bankman-Fried, I'd like to start by asking you the first question. FTX.us has a derivatives platform and recently bought ledger x as part of that. Is that correct? Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes. Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa): Okay, thank you. And that platform is registered with the CFTC. Is that correct? Sam Bankman-Fried: Yep. Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa): Okay, perfect. So I just want to clarify something. And this isn't to say anybody's doing any wrong. It's just to get the lay of the land. You also have an exchange for Bitcoin and other tokens, but that is not registered with either the CFTC or the SEC. Is that correct? Sam Bankman-Fried: That's correct. Currently, neither of them are primary markets regulated for spot Bitcoin to USD markets. Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa): Okay, thank you. And I know you're registered as a money transmitter, but that's not the same kind of oversight that we'll see from a federal market regulator. I also sit on the Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC, so a gap like this is especially concerning to me. And the big problem that I see here, from what I understand, is that the CFTC doesn't have regulatory authority for spot trading of commodities, just their derivatives. So that leaves consumers with inconsistent protections, which is a concern that I have. 2:55:00 Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa): Bitcoin, which has almost a trillion dollars invested in it, has CFTC oversight for people who are trading futures and options, but not for people who are trading the currency itself. Is that right? Sam Bankman-Fried: That is essentially correct. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD264: Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain

11 december 2022 | 62 min

FTX, a large cryptocurrency exchange, recently went bankrupt, leading to calls for government regulation of cryptocurrencies. But you might be wondering, what are cryptocurrencies? In part one of this two-part series, listen to expert testimony provided over a four-year period informing Congress about the cryptocurrency industry, the promise of blockchain, problems - both real and overblown - with this new technology, and how best to regulate this complicated industry. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Proof of Work Jake Frankenfield. May 2, 2022. Investopedia. Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Jake Frankenfield. Aug 18, 2022. Investopedia. Sherwin Dowlat. Jul 11, 2018. Satis Group. Madison Cawthorn The Associated Press. Dec 7, 2022. NPR. Regulations Cheyenne Ligon. Dec 5, 2022. CoinDesk. Bills Sponsor: Sen. Debbie Stabenow Audio Sources January 20, 2022 House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Witnesses: , Weill Family Foundation and Joan and Sanford I. Weill Professor, Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, Cornell Tech , Chief Executive Officer, Soluna Computing, Inc. , Chief Executive Officer, BitFury , Former Chief Executive Officer, Chelan County Public Utility District and Bonneville Power Administration , Shareholder Jordan Ramis P.C. June 16, 2021 House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Witnesses: , Global Head of Policy & Regulatory Affairs, Chainalysis , Senior Director, Center on Economic and Financial Power, Foundation for Defense of Democracies February 25, 2021 House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Witness , Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury July 30, 2019 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee concluded a hearing to examine regulatory frameworks for digital currencies and blockchain, including S. 2243, to amend the Expedited Funds Availability Act to require that funds deposited be available for withdrawal in real-time. Witnesses: , Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Circle, on behalf of The Blockchain Association , Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service , Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law October 11, 2018 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee concluded a hearing to examine the cryptocurrency and blockchain ecosystem, including S. 3179, to require the Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a study on how virtual currencies and online marketplaces are used to buy, sell, or facilitate the financing of goods or services associated with sex trafficking or drug trafficking. Witnesses: , Professor of Economics and International Business, New York University Stern School of Business , Director of Research, Coin Center Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD263: Republicans Take the House

28 november 2022 | 93 min

The results are in: The Democrats will keep the Senate, the Republican will take the House. In this episode, in preparation for the 118th Congress, Jen analyzes the detailed policy documents released by the House Republicans to see what they could reasonably accomplish, who their policies would help or hurt, and how they will likely wield their power in a politically divided Congress. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Southern Border David J. Bier. Sep 14, 2022. Cato Institute. May 2022. The Healthy Future Task Force. Jul 2022. American Security Task Force. American Federation of Teachers. Sean Altekruse et al. January 17, 2020. PLOS One 15(1). Tiffany Stecker. Feb 20, 2019. Bloomberg Law. Censorship Sep 2022. China Sep 2022. China Task Force. Commitment to America Megan Loe. Oct 25, 2022. Verify. House Republicans. House Republicans. Sep 20, 2022. House Republicans. Sep 2022. Jobs and the Economy Task Force. Energy and the Environment August 9, 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Mining Sep 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. John Emeigh. Jun 2, 2022. KXLF Butte. Betsy Smidinger. August 30, 2021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ryan DeMars. 2012. Teach the Earth. Clark Fork Watershed Education Program. Dams Mar 2, 2021. MIT Climate Portal. Fossil Fuels Jun 17, 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Jun 10, 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Jeff Brady and Neela Banerjee. Jun 9, 2021. Gutting Environmental Law Jun 10, 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Pesticides Jul 15, 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Jul 8, 2021. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Emily Dixon. Feb 15, 2019. CNN. Water May 11, 2015. NPR. Seth Siegel with Naty Barak. Jun 1, 2017. Real Assets Adviser 4(6). Healthcare Aug 2022. The Healthy Future Task Force. Jul 2022. The Healthy Future Task Force. Jun 2022. The Healthy Future Task Force. Jun 2022. The Healthy Future Task Force. Financial Regulations Sep 2022. Jobs & the Economy Task Force. Sep 2022. Jobs & the Economy Task Force. Jun 2022. The Energy, Climate, & Conservation Task Force. Parents Bill of Rights Committee on Education & Labor Republicans. Committee on Education & Labor Republicans. 2014 Government Funding 113th Congresss. 113th Congress. Oct 16, 2013. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. Workforce Education Jul 2022. Jobs & the Economy Task Force. Speak Out Act 117th Congress. Emilie Shumway. Nov 16, 2022. Legal Dive. Respect for Marriage Act 117th Congress. Annie Karni. Nov 16, 2022. The New York Times. Maggie Astor. Nov 16, 2022. The New York Times. Al Weaver. Nov 16, 2022. The Hill. Soon-to-be Laws Audio Sources Sep 23, 2022 Kevin McCarthy on YouTube Clips Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): They told us so many things that turned out not to be accurate. I mean, just think about it, they told us this thing didn't come from a lab. Sure looks like it did. But they want us to believe it was a bat to a penguin to Joe Rogan. And then we all got, it right? I'm just a country boy from Ohio. But I kind of think it probably came from a lab. I asked Dr. Burks a question three months ago in a hearing. I said Dr. Burks, when the Biden administration told us that the vaccinated couldn't get it, were they guessing or lying? Interesting. She paused and said, Well, Congressman, I like to think they hoped. I said, so it was a guess, a lie, or a hope. I'm not against the vaccine. I'm just saying that we're big boys and girls, we can handle the truth. Give us the facts. We are committed to doing the investigations that need to be done. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): On our very first bill we're going to repeal 87,000 IRS agents. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): We believe in fairness. We should ensure women only compete in women's sports. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA): We will have oversight hearings on what happened. Who was responsible for opening up America's southern border? How many have come in? How many are on the terrorist watch list that we know of, and when will we start doing something about it? In our commitment to America, we talk about securing America's border and holding them accountable. We will give Secretary Mayorkas a reserved parking spot, he will be testifying so much about this. So that's the kind of oversight we're going to be doing. February 5, 2014 “Little fish” montage featuring Former Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). October 8, 2013 Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX): I am very proud of not only what our Speaker is doing but of our majority leader, ERIC CANTOR, and our whip, KEVIN MC CARTHY. October 1, 2013 Former Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA): In fact, House Republicans have passed three continuing resolutions, or temporary spending bills, to keep this government open and to either defund or to delay ObamaCare—which the majority of Americans support. They were against it 31⁄2 years ago; they are against it today; and they support what we are doing in the Republican House of Representatives. I praise and commend Speaker JOHN BOEHNER and the leadership of ERIC CANTOR and KEVIN MCCARTHY for the strength that they have had in regard to this and for being so inclusive for every single member of our caucus. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD261: Inflation Reduction Act

30 oktober 2022 | 105 min

The Inflation Reduction Act is a new law designed to hasten the United States’ energy transition (and do nothing about inflation). In the last episode before the midterm election, learn about the energy path the Democratic Party has plotted for us and learn how this new law can possibly save you tens of thousands of dollars. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Jen Podcast Appearances The Living Numbers Podcast with Tony Rambles. A Word with Tom Merritt. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Tax Credits and Refunds Home Energy Efficiency Tax Credits eFile. Rocky Mengle. Sept 16, 2022. Kiplinger. Updated Aug 18, 2022. Energy Star. Electric Appliance Rebates U.S. Census Bureau. Electric Car Tax Credit Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Alternative Fuels Data Center. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Kelley R. Taylor. Oct 18, 2022. Kiplinger. Greg Iacurci. Oct 15, 2022. CNBC. John Bozzella. Aug 5, 2022. Alliance for Automotive Innovation. John Bogna. Jun 22, 2022. PCMag. U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Department of the Interior. Princeton University Research & Project Administration. Alternative Fuel vehicle refueling property credit Kelley R. Taylor. Sept 14, 2022. Kiplinger. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Hydrogen Catherine Clifford. Sep 8, 2022. CNBC. Emma Ochu et al. Jun 17, 2021. Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, Center on Global Energy Policy. Open Secrets. Jay Bartlett and Alan Krupnick. December 2020. Resources for the Future. 24/7 Wall St. Feb 16, 2020. Market Watch. Health Care Oct 5, 2022. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2022. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Carbon Capture Angela C. Jones and Ashley J. Lawson. Oct 5, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Emily Pontecorvo. Aug 22, 2022. Grist. 2021. Global CCS Institute. Nov 17, 2011. European Environment Agency. Offshore Wind Leases Abby Husselbee and Hannah Oakes. Aug 25, 2022. Harvard University Environmental & Energy Law Program. Sept 8, 2020. The White House. Fossil Fuels David Jordan. Oct 6, 2022. Roll Call. Aug 18, 2022. Enersection. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. The Associated Press. Apr 16, 2022. NPR. Taxes Kelley R. Taylor. Oct 10, 2022. Kiplinger. August 16, 2022. EY. Jacob Bogage. Aug 12, 2022. The Washington Post. Peter Warren. Aug 11, 2022. Empire Center. Open Secrets. November 13, 2017. Congressional Budget Office. The Law Revised August 5, 2022. Congressional Budget Office. Audio Sources September 22, 2022 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Witnesses: Tim Hemstreet, Managing Director for Renewable Energy Development, PacifiCorp Spencer Nelson, Managing Director, Research and New Initiatives, ClearPath Ted Wiley, President and Chief Operating Officer, Form Energy 19:19 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): When it comes to storage, there has rightly been a focus on the supply chain, particularly for lithium ion batteries that power electric vehicles and phones in our pockets and many other modern technologies. While we have benefited from the use of this important battery chemistry, the fact that China is responsible for 75% of global lithium ion battery production, including 60% of the world's cathode production and 80% of the world's anode production, should give everyone pause. That is why I was proud to champion Inflation Reduction Act which incentivized the onshoring of the entire battery supply chain, from the production and processing of raw materials, to the battery pack assembly and everything in between. March 31, 2022 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Witnesses: Dr. Steve Fortier, Director, USGS National Minerals Information Center, U.S. Department of the Interior Scott Melbye, President, Uranium Producers of America Julie Padilla, Chief Regulatory Officer, Twin Metals Minnesota Abigail Wulf, Vice President, Critical Minerals Strategy and Director of the Center for Critical Minerals Strategy, Securing America's Future Energy Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director, West Virginia Water Research Institute, West Virginia University 24:14 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): It makes no sense to remain beholden to bad actors when we have abundant resources in manufacturing know-how here in the United States. And make no mistake, we are beholden, particularly when it comes to many of the minerals that go into clean energy technologies. That is why I've sounded the alarm about going down the path of EVs alone and advocated for equal treatment for hydrogen 45:08 Abigail Wulf: As things stand, without some significant course corrections on America's critical minerals enterprise, the leading automobile power won't be the United States. It will be China. Not because of superior design or technology, but because of their massive head start and established market power, if not utter dominance, in all aspects of the supply chain that powers these [electric] vehicles. But simply mining alone does not begin to address the fundamentals of America's mineral supply chain challenge. Where we are most lacking and where China is most dominant is in that crucial but largely hidden processing phase and midstream component production. We simply can't dig up a rock and stick it in a Tesla. You have to crush it, smelt it, and refine it into precursor material that has been sold to somebody else to turn it into battery guts, namely cathodes, anodes and electrolytes. Today, the United States has less than 4% of all minerals processing capacity and makes 0% of the world's cathodes and anodes. By contrast, China is the world's largest processor of copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements, and they control 60% of anode production and 40% of global cathode production. Consider that in 2019, about 70% of the world's cobalt supply was mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but more than 70% of that cobalt was refined in or controlled by China. February 2, 2022 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Witnesses Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Director, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, Hydrogen Program Coordinator, U.S. Department of Energy Dr. Glen Richard Murrell, Executive Director, Wyoming Energy Authority Jonathan Lewis, Senior Counsel and Director of Transportation Decarbonization, Clean Air Task Force Michael J. Graff, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc. Brian Hlavinka, Vice President, New Energy Ventures, Corporate Strategic Development, Williams 21:07 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): However, we have some challenges to tackle in order to build a clean hydrogen economy. Producing hydrogen without emissions is two to six times the cost of current production methods. Also, retrofitting end-use applications to use hydrogen as a feedstock, from chemical plants to cars and trucks, will take huge investments from both public and private sectors. This is the demand that we need to develop hydrogen markets that can sustain themselves. The other big challenge is the safe and efficient transport and storage of large volumes of hydrogen, given its physical properties. There's a lot of promising work being done in this space and will allow us to leverage our vast natural gas pipeline network to transport hydrogen to market. 22:00 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): That is why I made research, development, and demonstration of these technologies a central part of the Energy Infrastructure Act, which this committee reported with bipartisan support last year, and which was subsequently included in the recently enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In that bill, we fund $9.5 billion in research, development and demonstration of clean hydrogen, and we tasked the Department of Energy to develop a national strategy and a roadmap to get us to a clean hydrogen economy. 27:25 Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): I'm concerned that the conversation around green versus blue hydrogen will pit technologies against each other rather than working together to establish a robust hydrogen marketplace. The simple truth right now is that 95% of hydrogen produced in the United States is made from natural gas. 1:42:00 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Can you share what the administration's policy is with regards to converting natural gas to hydrogen? We recognize that there are some within the [Biden] administration, certainly some groups that may have influence on the administration, who are very firm about not using fuel sources like natural gas. So the question is, is there a role for conversion to play? And what might we anticipate with regards to support and funding that might come with it? Dr. Sunita Satyapal: Thank you again for the question. And as mentioned, with hydrogen shot, we're really looking at all of the pathways. It's really about clean hydrogen. So whether it's natural gas, carbon feedstocks, nuclear renewables, you know, any pathway to get to the low carbon intensity, we're really pivoting away from the colors. There's a lot of complexity: green, blue, purple, turquoise….Pyrolysis is another approach. In fact, our loan program office just announced financing of $1 billion solid carbon, which is another value added product, no need for the CCS portion. So definitely an all-of-the-above strategy needed to meet all of our goals. July 28, 2020 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Witnesses: Steven Winberg, (Former) Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the US Department of Energy Shannon Angielski, Executive Director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council Dr. Julio Friedmann, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University 25:06 Dr. Julio Friedmann: Net zero means that any residual emissions must be balanced by removal, as Secretary Moniz said. It means that reduction of co2 emissions and removal of co2 emissions are complementary but distinct actions and that both are necessary. The National Academies and the IPCC find that this must be done at enormous scale exceeding the size of the global oil and gas industry today. We are not where we need to be to make this real. 48:35 Shannon Angielski: In addition, the International Energy Agency modelled the contributions of different technologies to meet that mid-century 2 degree scenario. And it shows that CCUS accounts for approximately 100 Giga tons of needed global co2 emissions reductions by 2060. To put this into perspective, this would be achieved by the operation of 1100 carbon capture systems on the equivalent of 500 megawatt coal fired units, or 3200 natural gas combined cycle units, which would need to be operating for the next 30 years. 1:59:00 Steven Winberg: The rest of the world is going to continue using fossil energy, whether it's coal or oil or natural gas. And that's why we have moved forward quickly on the coal first program, because it offers the opportunity for what I think of as 21st century coal. Right now the Chinese own the space in power generation — coal fired power generation. We have an opportunity to take technology and springboard over what the Chinese are building, which is basically 1970s vintage technology that we built, and they now have improved slightly, but they're selling it around the world, to countries that have coal under their feet, and they're going to continue using that coal. But with the coal first program, we can move into power generation, and we can move into hydrogen production, because these countries also, as they build out their transport sector, may not do it the same way that developed countries, they may move more swiftly into hydrogen. And so there's an opportunity there to take our technology using their natural resources that are under their feet, and produce zero emitting power generation and zero emitting hydrogen and perhaps even net negative hydrogen and net negative electricity and they can use that hydrogen in the transportation sector as well as the industrial sector. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD260: Failure to Fund with Graham Elwood

10 oktober 2022 | 93 min

Congress has failed to fund the government on time again. In this episode, Graham Elwood joins Jen as she geeks out on all the dingleberries attached to the new law extending Congress’s funding deadline until December 16th. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Executive Producer Recommended Sources August 8, 2022. The Peter Collins Show. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes FDA User Fees Katie Hobbins. Oct 3, 2022. Medical Device + Diagnostic Industry (MD+DI). New Mexico Fire Ryan Boetel. Sept 29, 2022. Albuquerque Journal. Associated Press. Jun 21, 2022. The Guardian. Elizabeth Miller and Jason Samenow. May 5, 2022. The Washington Post. Republicans and Disaster Relief Funding Sharon Zhang. Oct 3, 2022. Truthout. Zach Schonfeld. Oct 3, 2022. Lauren Book. Oct 3, 2022. Sanjana Karanth. Oct 2, 2022. HuffPost. Anna Skinner. Sept 30, 2022. Newsweek. Sergio Bustos. Sept 30, 2022. Tallahassee Democrat. Patrick Leahy. Sept 9, 2022. Vermont Biz. Jackson Water Crisis Anthony Warren. Sept 30, 2022. Jackson WLBT. Michael Goldberg. Sept 27, 2022. Yahoo News. Annie Snider and Lara Priluck. Sept 21, 2022. Politico. James Brasuell. Aug 20, 2022. Planetizen. Continuing Resolution Aidan Quigley. Sept 30, 2022. Roll Call. David Hawkings. Sept 7, 2016. Roll Call. Ukraine James Bradley. Oct 4, 2022. Emily Cochrane. Sept 29, 2022. The New York Times. Chelsey Cox. Sept 29, 2022. CNBC. Jackie Walorski Crash Marek Mazurek. Sept 16, 2022. Appropriations Congressional Research Service. Jeff Sachs Jeff Sachs on Bloomberg Global Financial News LIVE. Oct 3, 2022. Bono. Apr 18, 2005. TIME. Peter Passell. Jun 27, 1993. The New York Times. Campaign Contributions from the Defense Industry Open Secrets. Afghanistan Craig Whitlock. The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War. Simon & Schuster: 2021. Spencer Ackerman. Apr 29, 2013. U.S. Infrastructure and Global Rankings Contaminated Water in the United States Gloria Oladipo. Sep 6, 2022. The Guardian. Emily Holden et. al. Feb 26, 2021. The Guardian. Maura Allaire. Feb 12, 2018. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 115(9). Paul Pelosi Chip Stock Caroline Vakil. Jul 27, 2022. The Hill. Starbucks Unionization Union Election Data. Laws and Treaties Audio Sources Oct 3, 2022 Jeff Sachs: The main fact is that the European economy is getting hammered by this by the sudden cut off of energy. And now to make it definitive the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which I would bet was a US action, perhaps the US and Poland. This is a speculation — Bloomberg Host: That's quite a statement. Why do you feel that that was a US action? What evidence do you have of that? Jeff Sachs: Well, first of all, there's direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk, we're circling over this area. We also had the threats from the United States earlier in this year that one way or another, we are going to end Nord Stream. We also have a remarkable statement by Secretary Blinken, last Friday in a press conference, he says this is also a tremendous opportunity. It's a strange way to talk if you're worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance. I know this runs counter to our narrative, that you're not allowed to say these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over the world, when I talk to people, they think the US did it. And by the way, even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me privately, “Well, of course,” but it doesn't show up in our media. September 30, 2022 September 29, 2022 April 30, 1998 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD259: CHIPS: A State Subsidization of Industry

23 september 2022 | 84 min

A new law, known as the CHIPS Act, provides over $50 billion to existing, profitable companies to fund new semiconductor production facilities in the United States. In this episode, we examine why Congress decided to gift these companies our tax money now and explore the geopolitical implications of this funding decision. Beyond semiconductors, the law provides further corporate welfare for the creation of things that many of us tax payers likely support. This law is complicated; let's get nuanced. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Semiconductor Industry July 2022. Semiconductor Industry Association. February 2022. Semiconductor Industry Association. September 2021. Semiconductor Industry Association. Taiwan Bansari Mayur Kamdar and Medha Singh. Aug 2, 2022. Reuters. Karen M. Sutter. Mar 7, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Yimou Lee, Norihiko Shirouzu and David Lague. Dec 27, 2021. Reuters. PRISM Program Derek B. Johnson. Aug 27, 2018. FCW. Wealthy Shareholders Juliana Kaplan and Andy Kiersz. Oct 19, 2021. Insider. National Endowment for Democracy National Endowment for Democracy. National Science Foundation Directorate Mitch Ambrose. Mar 17, 2022. American Institute of Physics. Mar 17, 2022. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Fusion Research Diffen. Open Secrets. Open Secrets. K&L Gates. American Exception Book Aaron Good. 2022. Skyhorse Publishing. The Law Bills Later Added to the CHIPS Act Audio Sources Sept 18, 2022 60 Minutes Scott Pelley: What should Chinese President Xi know about your commitment to Taiwan? President Joe Biden: We agree with what we signed on to a long time ago, that there's a One China policy and Taiwan makes their own judgments about their independence. We are not moving, we're not encouraging their being independent. That's their decision. Scott Pelley: But would US forces defend the island? President Joe Biden: Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack. Scott Pelley: [overdub] After our interview, a White House official told us US policy has not changed. Officially, the US will not say whether American forces would defend Taiwan. But the Commander in Chief had a view of his own. [interview] So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion? President Joe Biden: Yes. Jul 27, 2022 Dec 8, 2021 Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs 30:45 Sen. James Risch (R-ID): A unilateral change in the status quo regarding Taiwan would not only threaten the security and liberty of 23 million Taiwanese, but also significantly damage vital US interests and alliances in the Indo Pacific. We would lose a model of democracy at a time of creeping authoritarianism. It would give China a platform in the first island chain to dominate the Western Pacific and threaten, indeed, US homeland. The consequences for Japan security, and therefore, the US-Japan alliance, are hard to overstate. Semiconductor supply chains would fall into China's hands, and it would emboldened China in other territorial disputes, including with India, and in the South China Sea. November 17, 2021 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy Witnesses: Dr. Troy Carter, Director, Plasma Science and Technology Institute, University of California, Los Angeles and Chair, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Long Range Planning Subcommittee Dr. Tammy Ma, Program Element Leader for High Energy Density Science, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. Robert Mumgaard, CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, Director, U.S. ITER Project Office Dr. Steven Cowley, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Clips Robert Mumgaard: However, from where I sit, I see three reasons why I'm very optimistic the US can create a definitive lead in this new industry. First, the growth of the private sector. Over $2.4 billion in private capital has been invested in the fusion companies that now number nearly 30. This is a similar amount of capital as in all the nuclear fission small modular reactor companies. This is coming from a large range of investors across venture capitalists, to university endowments, to large energy companies. And they're putting capital at risk in fusion because they understand that the world needs a fundamentally new source of clean energy if we are going to meet our decarbonization goals. And these companies are highly ambitious, with a recent survey stating that 84% of them believe that fusion will be on the grid in the 2030s or earlier. Robert Mumgaard: We will proceed with the commercialization of our first fusion pilot plant called ARC. We hope to have that online in the early 2030s. Robert Mumgaard: The second reason I'm optimistic is that the public program has produced a consensus plan. Detailed in the National Academies and FESAC (Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee) Recommendations is a transition of the public funded program towards the US developing commercial energy. We need to stop some activities and transition to others. But the researchers are enthusiastic and they are ready. We have a new generation of leaders at national laboratories and universities hungry to develop that technology. And that plan has been authorized but has not yet been implemented. Robert Mumgaard: And we're not alone. The other companies like TAE and General Fusion, Helion, Tokamak Energy, are looking at similar timeframes and experiencing similar growth. All these companies are looking to see which governments are going to be the best partners. And unfortunately, we are already seeing defections, with a major facility that could have been built in the US, instead being built in the UK. It'd be much better if the US public program leveraged the private sector, aligning with the technical goals and timelines to keep it happening here. Robert Mumgaard: The third reason I'm hopeful is the movement towards public private partnerships and we know that when the public and private sectors work together and recognize what each side is good at, we create vibrant ecosystems. We saw this in commercial space, with NASA and SpaceX. We saw it even more recently with the COVID-19 vaccine October 1, 2020 Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support Witness: Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment 1:22:10 Ellen Lord: I believe there may well be a lot of this, frankly: not continuing to engage with these Chinese companies on sensitive issues, but in turn, developing industrial bases here that makes us not reliant on that back and forth. There's quite a bit of discussion within the inner agency right now about constraining Chinese involvement from everything from investments to specific commodities. But again, I think one of the areas where we could have the most impact on China broadly, is reshoring microelectronics. And right now, my team is working very closely across DOD, as well as the inner agency to come up with a very specific recommendation for some public-private partnerships in order to develop the capability here domestically. We at DOD are only about 1% of the overall microelectronics market, however, we have some critical needs. July 16, 2020 15:20 Attorney General Bill Barr: “Made in China 2025” is the latest iteration of the PRC’s state-led, mercantilist economic model. For American companies in the global marketplace, free and fair competition with China has long been a fantasy. To tilt the playing field to its advantage, China’s communist government has perfected a wide array of predatory and often unlawful tactics: currency manipulation, tariffs, quotas, state-led strategic investment and acquisitions, theft and forced transfer of intellectual property, state subsidies, dumping, cyberattacks, and industrial espionage. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD258: Gain of Function Research

18 september 2022 | 65 min

On August 3rd, Senate Republicans held a hearing examining gain of function research: its possible role in creating the COVID-19 pandemic; the problems with oversight of this dangerous research; and recommendations to Congress for how to fix those problems. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Gain-of-function Research Talha Burki. Feb 1, 2018. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 18(2): pp 148-149. 2017. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Michael J. Selgelid. Aug 8, 2016. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(4): pp 923-964. Sara Reardon. October 22, 2014. Nature 514: pp 411-412. Oct 17, 2014. The White House Blog. Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Health Sciences Policy; National Research Council; Institute of Medicine. April 13, 2015. National Academies Press. Marc Lipsitch. Jun 29, 2014. The New York Times. COVID-19 Origin Theories Gary Ruskin. Sep 14, 2022. U.S. Right to Know. Alina Chan. Jul 30, 2022. Medium. Maria Cheng and Janey Keaten. Jun 9, 2022. AP News. Jun 9, 2022. World Health Organization. Carl Zimmer and James Gorman. Updated Oct 13, 2021. The New York Times. Richard Muller and Steven Quay. Oct 5, 2021. The Wall Street Journal. Steven Quay and Richard Muller. Jun 6, 2021. The Wall Street Journal. May 30, 2021. This Week in Virology [Podcast]. Glenn Kessler. May 25, 2021. The Washington Post. Jorge Casesmeiro Roger. Mar 24, 2021. Independent Science News. Josh Rogin. Mar 8, 2021. Politico. Jane Qiu. Jun 1, 2020. Scientific American. EcoHealth Alliance and Funding for Coronavirus Research Katherine Eban. March 31, 2022. Vanity Fair. Sharon Lerner and Maia Hibbett. Sep, 23 2021. The Intercept. Glenn Kessler. May 18, 2021. The Washington Post. Meredith Wadman and Jon Cohen. Apr 30, 2020. Science. National Institutes of Health. May 27, 2014. NIH RePORTER. NIH Database Data Removal Amy Dockser Marcus. Jun 23, 2021. The Hearing August 3, 2022 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight Witnesses: Richard H. Ebright, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology and Laboratory Director, Rutgers University Waksman Institute of Microbiology Steven Quay, CEO and Founder, Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. Kevin M. Esvelt, Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD257: PACT Act - Health Care for Poisoned Veterans

21 augusti 2022 | 107 min

After decades of our government denying healthcare to veterans they exposed to poisonous toxins, the PACT Act - which will eventually provide this hard-fought-for care - is now law. In this episode, learn exactly who qualifies for these new benefits and when, discover the shocking but little-known events that led to their poisonings, and find out what exactly happened during those 6 days when Senate Republicans delayed the passage of the PACT Act. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes What the PACT Does and Doesn’t Do Aug 10, 2022. VA Claims Insider. Abraham Mahshie. Aug 10, 2022. Air Force Magazine. Leo Shane III. Aug 4, 2022. Military Times. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA Sidath Viranga Panangal, Jared S. Sussma, and Heather M. Salaza. Jun 28, 2022. Congressional Research Service. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Toxic Exposures Burn Pits November 20th, 2014. VAntage Point. Feb 8, 2010. Military Times. U.S. Army Center of Military History. U.S. Army Center of Military History. Agent Orange Donnie La Curan. April 1, 2021. Veterans Resources. Charles Dunst. Jul 20, 2019. The Atlantic. Patricia Kime. May 11, 2020. Military.com. May 11, 2020. Yale Law School. Vietnam Security Police Association. Susan E. Davis. Apr 9, 1991. The Washington Post. Enewetak Atoll Chris Shearer. Dec 28, 2020. Vice. March 2018. U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Dave Philipps. Jan 28, 2017. The New York Times. Palomares, Spain Nuclear Accident November 1, 2021. Yale Law School Today. Dave Philipps. June 19, 2016. The New York Times. April 2001. United States Air Force. U.S. Department of Energy. February 1966 U.S. Department of Energy Archives. Thule, Greenland Nuclear Accident Robert Mitchell. Jan 21, 2018. The Washington Post. 897 F.Supp. 1098 (1995). United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 1982. History and Research Division, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command. Captain Robert E. McElwee. U.S. Defense Technical Information Center. South Carolina Nuclear “Storage” Doug Pardue. May 21, 2017 (Updated Jun 28, 2021). The Post & Courier. Gulf War Illness Johns Hopkins Medicine. May 11, 2022. UT Southwestern Medical Center Newsroom. Camp Lejeune Water Contamination The Carlson Law Firm on YouTube. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Oct 18, 2009. St. Lawrence County Government. St. Louis Area Nuclear Contamination Chris Hayes. Jul 27, 2022. Fox 2 Now - St. Louis. Jim Salter. Mar 19, 2022. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Jesse Bogan. Dec 20, 2021. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Apr 30, 2019. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Robert Alvarez. February 11, 2016. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. HBO Documentaries. Hanford Waste Management Site Jul 26, 2019. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Biden Drone Bombing Aug 7, 2022. The Express Tribune. Jon Stewart People Staff. August 11, 2022. People. Republican F*ckery Ryan Cooper. Aug 3, 2022. The American Prospect. Jordain Carney and Anthony Adragna. August 1, 2022. Politico. Oct 10, 2022. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Foreign Wars No One Talks About Ellen Knickmeyer. Jun, 16 2022. Military.com. Joseph R. Biden. June 08, 2022. The White House. Muhammad Fraser-Rahim. Oct 16, 2017. Newsweek. Overseas Contingency Operations Emily M. Morgenstern. Updated August 13, 2021. Congressional Research Service. Todd Harrison. Jan 11, 2017. Center for Strategic and International Studies The Law Timeline of Votes and Changes July 12, 2022. U.S. House of Representatives. August 1, 2022. Congressional Record -- Senate. Audio Sources August 10, 2022 PBS NewsHour on YouTube August 1, 2022 Global News on YouTube The Carlson Law Firm on YouTube July 31, 2022 CNN Clips 7:00 Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): Here's what you need to keep in mind, Jake. First of all, this is the oldest trick in Washington. People take a sympathetic group of Americans — it could be children with an illness, it could be victims of crime, it could be veterans who have been exposed to toxic chemicals — craft a bill to address their problems, and then sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its own and dare Republicans to do anything about it because they know they'll unleash their allies in the media and maybe a pseudo-celebrity to make up false accusations to try to get us to just swallow what shouldn't be there. That's what's happening here, Jake. 10:40 Jake Tapper: So one of the questions that I think people have about what you're claiming is a budgetary gimmick is, the VA budgets will always remain subject to congressional oversight, they can't just spend this money any way they want. And from how I read this legislation, it says that this money has to be spent on health care for veterans who suffered exposure from toxic burned pits. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): This is why they do this sort of thing, Jake, because it gets very deep in the weeds and very confusing for people very quickly. It's not really about veteran spending. It's about what category of government bookkeeping, they put the veterans spending in. My change, the honest people acknowledge it will have no effect on the amount of money or the circumstances under which the money for veterans is being spent. But what I want to do is treat it, for government accounting purposes, the way we've always treated it for government accounting purposes. Because if we change it to the way that the Democrats want, it creates room in future budgets for $400 billion of totally unrelated, extraneous spending on other matters. July 31, 2022 CBS News Clips 4:10 John Dickerson: 123 Republicans in the House voted for this, 34 Senate Republicans voted for it. Same bill. This week, the bill didn't change but the Republican votes did. Why? Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): Now, the Republican votes didn't change on the substance of the bill. Republicans have said we want an amendment to change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans health care. The Republicans support this. The Democrats added a provision that has nothing to do with veterans health care, and it's designed to change government accounting rules so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree. 6:25 Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): Honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you: if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it. John Dickerson: I understand, but the accounting change, as you know, is a result — the reason they put it in that other bucket is that it doesn't subject it to the normal triage of budgeting. And the argument is that the values at stake here are more important than leaving it to the normal cut and thrust of budgeting. July 29, 2022 The Problem with Jon Stewart on Youtube Clips 00:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What the dispute is about is the Democrats played a budgetary trick, which is they took $400 billion in discretionary spending and they shifted it to a mandatory one. Jon Stewart: What Ted Cruz is describing is inaccurate, not true, bulls ** t. This is no trick. Everything in the government is either mandatory or discretionary spending depending on which bucket they feel like putting it in. The whole place is basically a f * ing shell game. And he's pretending that this is some new thing that the Democrats pulled out, stuck into the bill, and snuck it past one Ted Cruz. Now I'm not a big-city Harvard educated lawyer, but I can read. It's always been mandatory spending so that the government can't just cut off their funding at any point. No trick, no gimmick, [it’s] been there the whole f**king time. 1:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What's the Republicans made clear is, if we leave that spending as discretionary — don't play the budgetary trick — the bill will pass with 80 or 90 votes. Jon Stewart: I don't know how many other ways to say this, but there was no budgetary trick and it was always mandatory. And when they voted in the Senate on June 16, they actually got 84 votes. And you know who voted for that? Ted f*cking Cruz and every other one of those Republicans that switched their votes. There was no reason for them to switch the votes. The bill that passed the Senate 84 to 14 on June 16 has not had one word added to it by Democrats, or spending fairies, or anybody else. It's the same f*cking bill. July 28, 2022 The Problem with John Stewart on YouTube Clips 3:20 Jon Stewart: June 16, they passed the PACT Act 84 to 14. You don't even see those scores in the Senate anymore. They passed it. Every one of these individuals that has been fighting for years, standing on the shoulders of Vietnam veterans who have been fighting for years, standing on the shoulders of Persian Gulf War veterans fighting for years, Desert Storm veterans, to just get the health care and benefits that they earn from their service. And I don't care if they were fighting for our freedom. I don't care if they were fighting for the flag. I don't care if they were fighting because they wanted to get out of a drug treatment center, or it was jail or the army. I don't give a shit. They lived up to their oath. And yesterday, they spit on it in abject cruelty. These people thought they could finally breathe. You think their struggles end because the PACT Act passes? All it means is they don't have to decide between their cancer drugs and their house. Their struggle continues. From the crowd: This bill does a lot more than just give us health care. Jon Stewart: It gives them health care, gives them benefits, lets them live. From the crowd: Keeps veterans from going homeless keeps veterans from become an addict, keeps veterans from committing suicide. Jon Stewart: Senator Toomey is not going to hear that because he won't sit down with this man. Because he is a fucking coward. You hear me? A coward. 5:15 Jon Stewart: Pat Toomey stood up there — Patriot Pat Toomey, excuse me, I'm sorry. I want to give him his propers, I want to make sure that I give him his propers. Patriot Pat Toomey stood on the floor and said “this is a slush fund, they're gonna use $400 billion to spend on whatever they want.” That's nonsense. I call bullshit. This isn't a slush fund. You know, what's a slush fund? The OSO, the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund. $60 billion, $70 billion every year on top of $500 billion, $600 billion, $700 billion of a defense budget. That's a slush fund, unaccountable. No guardrails? Did Pat Toomey stand up and say, this is irresponsible. The guard rails? No, not one of them. Did they vote for it year after year after year? You don't support the troops. You support the war machine. 7:10 Jon Stewart: And now they say, “Well, this will get done. Maybe after we get back from our summer recess, maybe during the lame duck…” because they're on Senate time. Do you understand? You live around here. Senate time is ridiculous. These motherfuckers live to 200 — they’re tortoises. They live forever and they never lose their jobs and they never lose their benefits and they never lose all those things. Well, [sick veterans are] not on Senate time. They're on human time. Cancer time. 8:20 Jon Stewart: I honestly don't even know what to say anymore. But we need your help, because we're not leaving. These people cannot go away. I don't know if you know this, you know, obviously, I'm not a military expert. I didn't serve in the military, but from what I understand, you're not allowed to just leave your post when the mission isn't completed. Apparently you take an oath, you swear an oath, and you can't leave, that these folks can leave because they're on Senate time. Go ahead, go home, spend time with your families, because these people can't do it anymore. So they can't leave until this gets done. July 26, 2022 Senate Session July 13, 2022 House Session 3:38:20 **Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA): The way this country has dealt with toxic exposure has been piecemeal and inadequate. President Biden recognizes this, too. Shortly after he was sworn in, I met with the President about our shared priorities for veterans. Upon learning of my goal to pass comprehensive legislation to help toxic-exposed veterans, the President leaned over to me and talked about his son, Beau, who served near burn pits in Iraq and Kosovo. It might be hard for most Americans to imagine what a burn pit looks like because they are illegal in the United States. Picture walking next to and breathing fumes from a burning pit the size of a football field. This pit contained everything from household trash, plastics, and human waste to jet fuel and discarded equipment burning day and night. Beau Biden lived near these burn pits and breathed the fumes that emanated from them. President Biden believes that con- stant exposure to these burn pits, and the toxic fumes they emitted, led to Beau’s cancer and early death. It was during that meeting when I knew I had a partner in President Biden. 2017 HBO Documentaries November 27, 2017 Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Foreign Correspondent Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD256: Poisonous Pet Collars

30 juli 2022 | 82 min

Seresto Flea and Tick Collars for dogs and cats have been sold to Americans since 2013. During that time, the EPA has received approximately 100,000 reports of illnesses and 2,500 reports of deaths of animals that wore a Seresto Flea and Tick collar, by far the most reports received about any flea and tick treatment on the market. In this episode, hear testimony from scientists about the Environmental Protection Agency’s disturbingly lax review processes for pesticides in pet products and learn why your vote in November is likely to determine if these popular but dangerous products will stay on American shelves. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Listen to the latest episode of Jen's new podcast with Andrew Heaton and Justin Robert Young — We're Not Wrong Episode 12: To report an incident directly to the EPA via email [email protected] Executive Producer Recommended Sources Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. Public Affairs: 2011. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Reports on Seresto and Pesticides Jun 15, 2022. House Committee on Oversight and Reform. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy. June 2022. Lauretta Joseph. May 19, 2022. Johnathan Hettinger. Sept. 24, 2021. USA Today. Jordan Liles. Mar 8, 2021. Snopes. Johnathan Hettinger. Mar 2, 2021. USA Today. Lawrence J. Dyckman et al. July 1995. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Lobbying 2022. Open Secrets. Open Secrets. Open Secrets. The Hearing June 15, 2022 Witnesses: Faye Hemsley & Omarion Hemsley, Owners of Deceased Pet Thomas Maiorino, Owner of Deceased Pet Jeffrey Simmons, President and Chief Executive Officer, Elanco Animal Health Incorporated Nathan Donley, Ph.D, Environmental Health Science Director, Center for Biological Diversity Karen McCormack, Former Scientist, Policy Analyst, and Communications Officer (ret.), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency Carrie Sheffield (minority witness), Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women’s Voice Clips 1:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): As early as 2015, just a few years after the collar entered the US market, an EPA investigation found that among similar products, the Seresto collar “ranked number one” by a wide margin in terms of total incidents, major incidents and deaths, even after factoring in companies’ relative sales. Those findings weren't enough to drive the makers of Seresto collar or the EPA to act. 1:50 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): In 2016, Canada's equivalent of the EPA known as the PMRA, concluded based on a review of the same American data available to the EPA that the collar posed too great a risk to pets and their owners to be ever sold in Canada. 2:10 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Even as the death count rose, the EPA allowed Seresto to remain on the market here without even so much as requiring additional warning labels that regulators mandated in places ranging from Australia to Colombia to the European Union. 2:30 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): The companies that manufactured the Seresto collar first Bayer animal health and then later Elanco were also aware of the risks, the incidents and the deaths, but they too failed to act. Instead, they hired third party industry insiders to conduct so-called independent reviews of the incident data, which ended up protecting their $300 million a year market but ended up endangering pets. So the Seresto collar stayed the same and so did the consequences. 4:15 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): This particular collar has caused 100,000 incidents reported to the EPA and over 2500 pet deaths reported to the EPA. 4:30 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): The steps that we are asking for today are crucial, because it's important to protect our pets and our families, too. I now call upon my distinguished colleague, Mr. Cloud for his opening statement. Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX): Thank you, Chairman. This is the first hearing of the Economic and Consumer Policy Subcommittee this year, and we've been in session for 52 days this year. And our first hearing is on pet collars. And I do realize that our pets are a huge part of our lives, they enrich our families, they provide companionship for my kids, they've helped foster responsibility and compassion and care, important ethics we need in our society. Just recently, our family mourned the loss of our guinea pig, biscuit. And so pets are a huge part of our family lives. But I have to admit that when I saw that this was going to be on the agenda for this week, I cannot help but be concerned, especially coming from South Texas about the 1000s 10s of 1000s of human lives that have passed away due to fentanyl and due to an open border and due to the policies of this administration to continue to aid and abet cartels. And I realized that this is the economic and Consumer Policy Subcommittee. And so I think about economic policy happening right now and where the minds of the American people are. Gas is now averaging $5 A gallon nationwide. For the first time in history. We have not had a hearing. Inflation is at a 40 year high. We have not had a hearing, the American people cannot find baby formula. We still haven't had a hearing. I've mentioned fentanyl is killing Americans, especially our teens at unprecedented rates. We have not had a hearing. Biden's systemic elimination of the safe and secure border he inherited has led to the worst humanitarian and national security crisis in this country's history. We have not had a hearing this term, we could talk about how inflation is affecting the cost of owning a pet, including the increased cost of food, toys, accessories, but we're not talking about that either. Instead, we're holding a hearing on the pet collar, which fights fleas and ticks. And as any pet owner knows fleas and tick management is an essential part of pet care. But I'm not sure it's an essential part of congressional oversight, especially when we take in mind where the American people are at. And frankly, I've talked to a number of people in my district and others who live in other parts of the country and they are really surprised that this has risen to one of the top priorities of commerce at this time in juncture. The subcommittee Republicans would rather explore efforts to help American consumers during these trying times, we would gladly have joined the chairman in holding a hearing on the shortage of baby formula. Moreover, we have welcomed the chance to explore TikTok’s troubling practice of showing dangerous content to minors, an investigation you all started last year. In fact, it's now come to light that teenagers are using tick tock and other social media platforms to purchase illicit drugs including unknowingly in many cases, in most cases, fentanyl. Social media platforms are also using it to recruit young people into the gig economy of human trafficking. A hearing on that crisis could be incredibly important. And on the subject of our nation's youth, CDC bureaucrats have actively pursued an agenda to close schools during the pandemic instead of following the science damaging our children's financial, mental, physical, emotional, and also their learning for years to come. But we still have not had a hearing. Americans are facing incredible economic issues which require us as elected officials to listen and to respond. I do appreciate the fact that our pets play an important part of our lives. We should be kind to animals and we should teach our children to do the same. But I do care immensely more about the human lives that we were elected to serve. 10:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): A recorded vote has been requested — we will pause while the we will get the clerk out. 12:00 Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL): Mr. Chairman, it's already been about what? A minute and a half. Where's the clerk? Is the clerk on lunch and not here today? Rep. Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): I think the clerk is on the way Mr. Donalds, thank you. Rep. Donalds: Is the clerk sitting in the side office just hanging out? I mean, come on, Mr. Chairman. 21:20 Clerk: Mr. Cloud? Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX): Yes Clerk: Mr. Cloud votes yes. Mr. Keller? Rep. Fred Keller (R-PA): Yes Clerk: Mr. Keller votes yes. Mr. Franklin? Rep. C. Scott Franklin (R-FL): Yes Clerk: Mr. Franklin votes yes. Mr. Clyde? Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): Yes. Clerk: Mr. Clyde votes yes. Mr. Donalds? Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL): Yes Clerk: Mr. Donalds votes yes. 26:31 Thomas Maiorino: My name is Thomas Maiorina. I reside in Mount Laurel, New Jersey with my wife Monica. I am the father of three boys. My youngest son, Robert turned 12 in 2011. After years of asking for a dog, he wore us down and we decided to rescue a dog from a southern shelter for my son's birthday. After researching online, we adopted a mixed breed mutt that Robbie and his two other brothers named Rooney. Rooney swiftly became a loved member of our family. A bit rambunctious, she was just what a 12 year old boy needed. She loved the run and chase anything the move in the yard. By all measures, we took great care to ensure Rooney had a healthy and happy life. We took her on daily walks, sometimes three a day, hikes on park trails. We monitor her diet and made sure she was seen by the veterinarian as needed, and she received all of her shots. Because she was a bit rambunctious and we lived in a wooded area where there's a lot of wildlife, we were constantly concerned about the problems of fleas and ticks. We consulted with a veterinarian after getting Rooney to determine the best way to protect her against this. We use a variety of prevention methods for the first few years and when we changed veterinarians in approximately 2013 or 14, the new veterinarian strongly recommended that we use the Seresto flea and tick collar, based on all of our options. We heeded that advice and purchased Seresto collars from our local PetSmart. The collars were intended to provide protection for up to eight months. We noticed that after fixing a collar to Rooney’s neck, she began to itch and first had that treated and tested for allergies. We took her to the vet several times during 2018 seeking to find the cause for the ever increasing itching. After several visits and multielement medications, they were unable to determine the cause and we switched to a specialist in 2019 to seek further assistance, where they provided allergy shots and other medications to address the worsening itching and related symptoms. Rooney's behavior then became more erratic as the months wore on she began linking her paws so feverishly they would bleed. She also developed bleeding patches on her stomach. Ultimately, in October 2020, Rooney suffered horrendous grand mal seizure in the presence of myself and my wife. The damage done by the seizure was irreversible. She was a shell of her former self and ultimately, the family decided the most humane thing would be to put Rooney to sleep at the age of nine. In early March 2021, I read an article online about Seresto pet collars resulting in the deaths of 1700 Pets without any warnings from the EPA or the manufacturer. I sought out legal representation not because I wanted financial compensation, but because I took great pains to care for Rooney. The final 18 months of her life were agonizing to watch if I could help prevent another family from going through what my family went through. I wanted to act. I'm here today in furtherance of that effort. I appreciate the committee taking the time to investigate this matter. And thank you for your time. 33:30 Jeffrey Simmons: There are a few points I'd like to emphasize upfront. First, the EPA approved Seresto following more than 80 safety and toxicity studies, all of which show that Seresto and its ingredients have a strong safety profile. Second, more than 80 regulatory bodies around the world have approved Seresto. Seresto is widely used and more than 80 million collars worn over the past decade to protect dogs and cats from fleas and ticks around the world. 34:00 Jeffrey Simmons: Third, adverse event reports are not intended to be, and in fact are absolutely not, proof of causation. Reports require further investigation and analysis to determine cause. And after years of review, our pharmacovigilance team made up of veterinarians and other experts who study adverse event reports has not identified a single death caused by the active ingredients in the collar. 36:45 Jeffrey Simmons: No product is without risk. What matters is whether those risks are reasonable. And in light of the benefits and numerous studies and the incident report data for Seresto demonstrate the product does not pose an unreasonable risk and has a strong safety profile, which is why the American Veterinary Medical Association opposed canceling Seresto’s EPA registration. 38:05 Nathan Donley: My name is Dr. Nathan Donley. I'm the science director for the Environmental Health Program at the Center for Biological Diversity. I have a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Oregon Health and Sciences University. The last seven years of my professional life have been spent researching how pesticides impact people and the environment and the regulatory failures that can actually facilitate harm rather than prevent it. I published three peer reviewed scientific articles and five technical reports on this subject. I've authored over 100 technical scientific comments to the EPA on pesticide documents, including flumethrin and imidacloprid, the two active ingredients in the Seresto collar. I've read through 1000s of pages of FOIA documents I requested on matters related to the approval and continued use of Seresto. 39:40 Nathan Donley: While other agencies like the FDA have robust systems in place to surveil harms from products under their purview, EPA only requires minimal information be submitted four times a year and they delegate this responsibility to the pesticide industry itself. The limited information that is collected includes only the pesticide product name, where the incident occurred, and the severity of the incident. That's it. Oftentimes, the agency doesn't even know if the incident involves a dog or a cat. Even though the EPA determines what incident information it collects, it then turns around and laments that the incident data are insufficient to take regulatory action to protect public health, the environment and our pets. It's a system designed to achieve nothing other than maintaining the status quo. Worse yet, reported incidents significantly underestimate the true scope of harm. The EPA recently estimated that only one in 25 pesticide incidents involving another pesticide called Kamba was actually reported to the authorities. That's only a 4% reporting rate. Given that 100,000 people have reported their concerns about Seresto, this is very alarming because the true number of harmful incidents to pets could be potentially far higher. 41:05 Nathan Donley: The EPA’s counterpart in Canada was so concerned about Seresto incidents and harms of pets and humans that it denied Seresto approval in 2016. Canada analyzed U incident data and determined that Seresto collars had an incident rate 50 times greater than the average flea collar and 36 times greater than Canada's trigger for review. 41:25 Nathan Donley: EPA has no trigger for review of any pesticide product, no matter how much harm is being reported. And because the agency has no mandated trigger for reviewing pesticides like Seresto, rather than choosing to use incident reporting data to inform a robust regulatory process and take dangerous products off the market, EPA routinely chooses to do nothing at all. And that's especially troubling when you consider that Seresto is just one of 18,000 pesticide products currently approved by the EPA. 42:40 Karen McCormack: My name is Karen McCormack. At the present time I am a retired government employee after working over 40 years at the Environmental Protection Agency. During my career at EPA, I first worked in an EPA laboratory as a research coordinator. And in that capacity, I conducted research on numerous pesticides. Later I transferred to EPA headquarters in Washington DC, and worked in various positions in the pesticide program as a scientist, policy analyst, and a communications officer. I also worked in a number of offices at EPA including the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxins. Although I'm retired from EPA, I'm still closely following a number of environmental topics and one of those topics of interest to me has been the impact of flea and tick pet products on cats and dogs. 43:30 Karen McCormack: The US Environmental Protection Agency is charged with regulating products that contain pesticides and in ensuring that all pesticide products are safe to use. Before 1996, EPA did not consistently require manufacturers to conduct animal safety studies for pet products containing pesticides. Because pet products with pesticides were available readily in commercial stores, consumers thought they must be safe. This is not necessarily the case. Flea and tick products are designed to kill insects, and they often contain poisonous chemicals. When combined with pesticides that are used outside the home and in the water and food that people drink and eat, the aggregate risks from all these sources of pesticides can be high, especially for children who are vulnerable to toxic chemicals -- much more vulnerable than adults. And it wasn't until the passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act that EPA began to examine the risks from sources other than food, including risks from pet products containing pesticides. After the passage of FQPA, pesticide manufacturers were required to submit to EPA animal safety studies and incident reports showing harm to animals and humans exposed to pesticides and pet products. Between 2012 and the present time the EPA received an increasing number of incident reports related to the use of flea and tick pet collars for dogs and cats. The toxic effects that were described in these many incident reports from the use of certain pet collars ranged from mild effects, such as skin irritation to more severe effects such as intense tremors, seizures, paralysis, organ failure and death. The largest number of incident rate counts that EPA received during this period were from the use of pet collar called Seresto. 45:35 Karen McCormack: Between January 2012 and the present time, EPA has received over 100,000 incident reports, and these incident reports include human incidents as well as pet incidents. These reports also include at least 2300 reports of pet deaths. The number is most likely a very low estimate of the actual number of incidents that are occurring since many pet owners do not know that they can report incidents to EPA and they may not know how to correlate the adverse effects in their pets with a particular pet product. 46:30 Karen McCormack: There are no independent organizations that rank the safety of pet products. And the sales data which is needed to rank the safety of pet products is considered confidential business information by the manufacturers. EPA’s risk assessments also do not tell the full story of what pet products are safe, as they rely heavily on industry generated studies that were conducted on mice and rats rather than dogs and cats. And EPA’s risk assessments also are based mainly on studies that were conducted with only one pesticide in Seresto rather than the combined pesticides in this pet product. 47:10 Karen McCormack: Although the original manufacturers of Seresto, Bayer, did conduct a number of efficacy and safety studies in dogs and cats treated with Seresto, the company did not conduct two very critical studies that are important for determining the safety of a pet product. These tests include a pet transferable residue study, a petting study, to determine the exposure of humans to Seresto. And they did not conduct a study that measures the amount of pesticide that gets in the blood of treated dogs and cats. 48:45 Carrie Sheffield: My name is Carrie Sheffield and I'm a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women's Forum. We are a nonprofit organization committed to increasing the number of women who value free markets and personal liberty. 2:44:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): Let me just show you some analysis that was conducted by Elanco, which we would just refer to as well as the EPA, as well as the Canadian equivalent of the EPA, which is called the PMRA. Essentially, we look at this chart here, and we see that at the top Elanco computed that 0.51% of pet deaths were “possibly or probably” caused by the Seresto collar. The PMRA in Canada, looking at a sample of pet deaths concluded that 33% of those pet deaths were possibly or probably caused by Seresto collars. And the EPA here, concluded that 45% were possibly or probably caused by pet by the Seresto collar. Now, sir, I think originally, you said that there is no scientific evidence, no evidence of a causal link, this is clearly evidence, it was so compelling that the Canadian equivalent of the EPA never allowed for Seresto collars to be sold in Canada, correct? Jeffrey Simmons: Yes, I'm aware of that decision. I would also add that 80 other countries have approved this product, we've had over 80 million collars actually used. I'm not familiar with this data comparison, but what I can say is following the EPA regulatory process around the oversight, that we have pharmacovigilance, close to 200 veterinarians and staff on our team, looking at the data through the way the EPA wants us to we have not seen a linkage from the active ingredients. Rep. Krishnamoorthi: I understand that sir, I understand you haven't seen the linkage, although other authorities have and their scientists who are not paid by you have done so. 2:46:25 Nathan Donley: This is what we commonly see, quite frankly, when the regulated industry is doing their own research. It commonly finds that their products are safer than when government agencies or academic scientists take on a similar analysis. 2:46:55 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): We have FOIA documents from the EPA, and emails internal to the EPA talking about the Seresto collar. Here's just one of them. This is from an employee who basically voiced their opinion about recent coverage of the Seresto controversy, he said, “looks like the sh*t has hit the fan….will be interesting seeing where this goes. I hope there is a FOIA for all communications on this so that our emails are made public. We have been screaming about Seresto for many years.” I presume that you've heard some of these screams and concerns, correct, Ms. McCormack? Karen McCormack: That's correct. A number of EPA employees have contacted me and given me detailed descriptions about what's happening with Seresto and they were very upset that EPA refused to do anything about it. 2:48:25 Karen McCormack: A number of the scientists, and this is not unusual, feel that the decision makers are not considering the science and they're making decisions based on political reasons. I don't know if I have time to talk about this, but I did look at the science that the Canadian government did, the causality analysis. They looked at the consistency and toxicity of effects from exposure of pets to Seresto. And what they found was very disturbing. It was so disturbing that they decided the risks were too high to approve Seresto and they could not be mitigated by putting a label statement on the product or by issuing warning labels, so they refused to approve Seresto. 2:49:25 Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX): Thank you, Ms. McCormack, for acknowledging that the EPA sometimes makes political decisions, so that's something we'll definitely be coming back to next term. 2:55:05 Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): Are the active ingredients for Seresto in the United States different from the active ingredients for Seresto collars in other countries? Jeffrey Simmons: No, I do not believe they're any different than the other 80 countries. Rep. Porter: In other countries like in Colombia and Australia, the warning labels for Seresto collars classify the collar as highly toxic and as poison. 2:55:50 Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): Does the label in the United States have language? Like highly toxic or poison? Yes or no? Jeffrey Simmons: It does not. Rep. Porter: Okay. So the warning label here in the United States, though does say that mild reactions may occur and mentions hair loss, scratching and redness. The most severe symptoms listed are eczema and lesions. This is the warning label: does it mention the potential for death? Jeffrey Simmons: It does not. Rep. Porter: So a pet owner looking at this label that we're looking at would have absolutely no reason, no way to know that Seresto may have caused roughly 100 pet deaths. That's what both the Canadian Pest Management Agency, the PMRA, and the EPA found. Will you change this label, so that it includes deaths as a possible side effect? Jeffrey Simmons: Congresswoman, we do not believe the scientific data warrants a label change. And again, that is not just the 80 studies were submitted. There's been 20 additional added studies since and all of the oversight data that's been done on the 33 million pets over the 10 years. So again, following an EPA regulated process, we're always open if a data warranted, some need for a change, we would do that. 2:57:30 Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): The EPA encouraged both your predecessor, Bayer, and your company, Elanco, to update the warning label. Yet, you just said that you never have. So the federal government did in fact advise you to update the label and you failed to do so. Is that correct? Jeffrey Simmons: I do not believe that is correct. We are in regular engagement with EPA. We have not received any formal…there's no data that warrants that and there's been no formal engagement on that. 2:58:15 Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): The EPA asked Bayer, the predecessor here, in 2019 to help the agency collect data on adverse incidents for cats and dogs using the Seresto collar. EPA asked Bayer to split the registration for cats and dogs, so the agency could better understand and evaluate the risks for each type of pet. They refused, saying that change might have, “an adverse impact on sales” and they also said, “it would be a substantial increase in work.” Mr. Simmons, are you willing to make that change and split the registration for cats and dogs as the EPA requested? Or do you believe it's too much work? Jeffrey Simmons: I am willing to engage with the EPA on anything that the scientific data and the engagement under the regulatory body of the EPA merits the right thing to do. We believe the 80 studies and all of the pharmacovigilance data that we've submitted to them stands that this is a safe product. 3:00:10 Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA): I feel obligated to begin by stating the obvious this afternoon. Today's hearing is a colossal waste of time and resources. 3:13:25 Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA): And the only reason that the public knew about the harm caused by this pesticide is because the Center for Biological Diversity publicly petitioned the EPA to cancel registration for Seresto flea collars. If they had not bought this to light, do you think we would even know of the dangers presented by these collars? Nathan Donley: No, we wouldn't. You know, the investigation that came out in USA Today in 2021 really brought this to the public attention. And if there wasn't that amount of pressure from the public, this would just still be completely unknown. EPA, for the last 10 years, has not done anything to alert consumers to the harms associated with this product or any other pesticide products where there are a very high number of incidents. 3:15:10 Karen McCormack: I think some of the people at EPA are programmed to go along with whatever industry says. It makes life easier for you, you can go home earlier and you can also get promoted easier if you go along with what industry says. It's unfortunate a problem there. And I've seen it over the years and it's very hard to do something about it. 3:15:40 Karen McCormack: Canada's analysis was very scientific. It was not only based on incident data and sales data, it was based on the toxicity of the two pesticides in Seresto. And they looked at the consistency and what happened eventually with the pets that were exposed to Seresto. 3:19:20 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL): And so because of the tremendous number of pet incidents, the tremendous number of deaths, even when factoring in sales, I sadly have no choice but to recommend that the EPA commence a notice of intent to cancel proceedings and to fully investigate what's going on with the Seresto collar, and I respectfully request Elanco to voluntarily recall these collars at this time, pending this further investigation. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD255: Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)

17 juli 2022 | 86 min

The recently signed gun law, S. 2938: Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, contained a surprise dingleberry postponing a regulation designed to save seniors money on their pharmaceutical drugs by prohibiting kickbacks to an industry few have heard of: Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). This little-known but extremely powerful industry deserves much of the blame for ever rising prescription drugs costs in the United States. In this episode, Jen gives you the scoop on PBMs and how they make their money at the expense of Americans who are most dependent on medications. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! We’re Not Wrong Berlin Meetup Contact Justin at Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes US Healthcare Landscape Jessi Jezewska Stevens. Apr 23, 2020. Bookforum. Tanza Loudenback. Mar 7, 2019. Insider. Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden. 2019. U.S. Senate Finance Committee. Kaiser Family Foundation. Sara R. Collins and David C. Radley. Dec 7, 2018. The Commonwealth Fund. PBMs What are PBMs? JC Scott. Jun 30, 2022. The Hill. Zach Freed. Jun 22, 2022. American Economic Liberties Project. Adam J. Fein. Jun 22, 2021. Drug Channels. Nov 11, 2021. 46brooklyn. Adam J. Fein. Feb 3, 2019. The Wall Street Journal. How PBMs Make Money National Association of Chain Drug Stores. RxSafe. True North Political Solutions. Oct 25, 2017. Pharmacy Times. ACA “Vertical Integration” Loophole Peter High. Jul 8, 2019. Forbes. Angelica LaVito. Nov 28, 2018. CNBC. David Dayen. Oct 12, 2018. The American Prospect. Jeff Byers. April 12, 2018. Healthcare Dive. Susan Morse. May 10, 2017. Healthcare Finance. Lobbying Open Secrets. The Demise of Independent Pharmacies Christine Blank. Oct 17, 2019. Drug Topics. Paulina Firozi. Aug 23, 2018. The Washington Post. What Is a Formulary? Ana Gascon Ivey. May 19, 2020. GoodRx. Previous Delays in Rebate Regulation Paige Minemyer. Jan 29, 2021. Fierce Healthcare. Paige Minemyer. Jan 12, 2021. Fierce Healthcare. May 2019. Congressional Budget Office. The Gun Law Passage Process Office of the Clerk. May 18, 2022. U.S. House of Representatives. Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board. May 12, 2022. Miami Herald. Annie Karni. Apr 12, 2022. The New York Times. Background on Most Important Provisions Mary Katherine Wildeman. May 26, 2022. CT Insider. Jeffrey Pierre. May 26, 2022. NPR. The Dingleberry Erik Sherman. Jun 30, 2022. Forbes. Molly Rutherford. Jun 28, 2022. The Hill. Marty Schladen. Jun 22, 2022. Iowa Capital Dispatch. Poland Train Station Taylor Popielarz, Maureen McManus and Justin Tasolides. Mar 25, 2022. Spectrum News NY1. The Law and the Regulation U.S. Health and Human Services Department November 30, 2020 Audio Sources November 17, 2015 House Committee on the Judiciary Witnesses: Bradley J. Arthur, R.Ph., Owner, Black Rock Pharmacy David Balto, Law Offices of David A. Balto PLLC Amy Bricker, R.Ph. Vice President of Retail Contracting & Strategy, Express Scripts Natalie A. Pons, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, CVS Health Clips 53:48 Bradley Arthur: The Big Three PBMs control almost 80% of the entire market and these PBMs have the upper hand both in negotiating the contract with the payer, as well as strongly influencing the actual plan design itself. The PBM industry typically states that they can use their economic power to harness enhanced market efficiencies, but for whom? However, the staggering annual revenues that continue to grow each year of the big three suggests that these efficiencies are going directly to their corporations’ bottom lines. Small community pharmacies like mine are faced on a daily basis with the impact of the PBMs’ disproportionate market power. Community pharmacies routinely must agree to take-it-or-leave-it contracts from the PBMs just to continue to serve our long-standing patients. As if that weren't enough, the PBMs also directly set the reimbursement rates for pharmacies, the very same pharmacies that stand in direct competition of some of these PBM-owned mail-order and specialty pharmacies. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the PBMs present employer and government payers with carefully tailored suggested plans designs that steer beneficiaries to these PBM-owned entities. January 29, 2019 Senate Committee on Finance Witnesses: Kathy Sego, Mother of a Child with Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D., President, American Action Forum Mark E. Miller, Ph.D., Vice President of Health Care, Laura and John Arnold Foundation Peter B. Bach, MD, MAPP, Director, Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes Clips 1:57:30 Sen. John Cornyn (R - TX): Can anybody on the panel explain to me why we have a general prohibition against kickbacks — they call them rebates — under the Social Security Act, but we nevertheless allow it for prescription drug pricing? What's the sound public policy reason for excluding prescription drug pricing from the anti-kickback rule under federal law? Douglas Holtz-Eakin: I can't explain that and won’t pretend to. [laughter] Sen. Cornyn: I thought I was the only one who didn't understand the wisdom of that. Well, it's not a transparent arrangement and it does produce upward pressure on drug prices. And obviously, the negotiations between the PBM and the pharma in terms of what the net cost is, is not transparent, nor is it delivered to the consumer. Is it Dr. Miller? Dr. Bach? Peter Bach: It's delivered to the consumer indirectly through the reduction of the total cost of the benefit, but it is not delivered to the actual consumer using the drug, and that is a disassociation, that is a problem. Because it essentially reverses the structure of insurance. Lowering the total costs are people who use it the least, and raising the costs are people who use it the most, relative to if you allowed the rebate to be used at the point of sale, including all discounts. 1:59:49 Douglas Holtz-Eakin: If we had the negotiation be about the upfront price, so instead of a high list price and a rebate, you just negotiate a lower price, that would be the price that Ms. Sego would pay and insurance companies would look at that and say, okay, she's not paying as much as she used to, we're going to have to make up that money somewhere else and they might raise premiums. That means that people who don't have extreme insulin drug costs would pay a little bit more in a premium every month, and people who have extremely devastating medical conditions and high health care costs would get less costs. That's exactly what insurance is supposed to do. And so the rebate system is more than giving strange incentives on pricing. It's undercutting the purpose of insurance in general. February 26, 2019 Senate Committee on Finance Witnesses: Richard A. Gonzalez, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AbbVie Inc. Pascal Soriot, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, AstraZeneca Giovanni Caforio, M.D., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Jennifer Taubert, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Chairman, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson Kenneth C. Frazier, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co., Inc. Albert Bourla, DVM, Ph.D., Chief Executive Office, Pfizer Olivier Brandicourt, M.D., Former Chief Executive Officer, Sanofi Clips 1:22:03 Albert Bourla: Adverse incentives that favor higher cost biologics are keeping biosimilars from reaching patients. In many cases, insurance companies declined to include lower cost biosimilars in their formularies because they would risk losing the rebates from covering higher cost medicines. I can't think of a more concerning example of a broken system and we need to do something about it. 1:33:35 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R - IA): So many of you have voiced support for the recent rebate rule proposed by the administration. Should the administration finalized this rule, will you commit to lowering your drug prices? Richard Gonzalez [CEO, AbbVie]: Mr. Chairman, we are supportive of the rule. We'd like to see it in its final form, obviously, to make a final decision, but we are supportive of taking the discount to the patient at the point of sale. Sen Grassley: Okay. AstraZeneca? **Pascal Soriot [CEO, AstraZeneca]**The same for us Senator, I would go one step further: if the rebates were removed from the commercial sector as well, we will definitely reduce our list prices. Sen Grassley: Okay. And Bristol? Giovanni Caforio [CEO, Bristol-Myers Squibb]: We have the same positions. Sen Grassley: Okay. Johnson and Johnson? Jennifer Taubert [EVP, J&J]: Yes, we're supportive, and that definitely would be my goal. We would just need to see the final legislation, provided that there aren't additional fees that are added into the system to compensate for the rebates. Sen Grassley: Merck? **Kenneth C. Frazier: I would expect that our prices would go down if we change the system. Again, on the commercial side as well as the Medicare side. Sen Grassley: Okay, Pfizer? Albert Bourla [CEO, Pfizer]: It is a very clear intention that we will not keep a single dollar from these rebates. We will try to move every single penny to the patients and we think if this goes also to the commercial plants that will be even better for more patients. Sen Grassley: Okay. Sanofi? Olivier Brandicourt [Former CEO, Sanofi]: Lowering list price has to be linked to better access and affordability at the counter for the patients. 1:35:20 Sen. Ron Wyden (D - OR): Is it correct that your company, and nobody else, sets the starting price for all drugs sold by Pfizer? Yes or no? Albert Bourla: It is a negotiation with PBMs and they are very powerful. Sen. Wyden: But you still get to set the list price? Albert Bourla: Yes, but we set this price and the rebate limit(?). 1:35:40 Sen. Ron Wyden (D - OR): Is it correct, when a hypothetical patient, let's call her Mrs. Jones, goes to pay for her drug at the pharmacy counter, her coinsurance is based on the price of the drug you set? Albert Bourla: It is correct in many cases. Sen. Wyden: Okay. I just want you all to know that the number one reason consumers are getting hammered, is because these list prices, which you have the last word with respect to where they are, are unaffordable. And the high prices are tied to what the consumer pays at the pharmacy counter. And all this other stuff you talk about, the rebates and the discounts and the coupons, all this other stuff is window dressing, all of that. And the fact is on Part D, 40% of the drugs don't even have a rebate. So I want it understood, particularly because I've asked you, Mr. Borla, I think you and others in the industry are stonewalling on the key issue, which is actually lowering list prices. And reducing those list prices are the easiest way for American consumers to pay less at the pharmacy counter. 2:12:45 Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE): First is eliminating rebates to PBMs. That's the first one, eliminating rebates to PBMs. The second is value based arrangements. And the third is increasing transparency industry-wide on how you set your prices. 2:13:20 Richard Gonzalez: We clearly support providing the discount at the patient level, eliminating rebates essentially. 2:14:10 Pascal Soriot: If the rebates, as I said earlier, were to be removed from Part D and the commercial sector, we would actually reduce our list prices. 2:15:10 Giovanni Caforio: I would say that not only do we support all three elements that you mentioned, but I do believe those three elements together with the continued effort to develop a generic and biosimilar market would mean significant change, and would clearly alleviate the concerns that patients have today. 2:14:44 Jennifer Taubert: We are very supportive of all three elements that you outlined 2:15:52 Kenneth Frazier: We too support all three. 2:15:55 Albert Bourla: All three elements are transformational for our industry, will disrupt it. However, we do agree that these are the three things that need to be done and also I believe that will have significant meaningful results if we do. 2:16:10 Olivier Brandicourt: We support the three Senator, but we want to keep in mind at the end of the chain the patient has to benefit, so if rebates are removed it has to be to the benefit of patients. Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE): Good, thanks. 2:18:10 Albert Bourla: 50% of the American people are in commercial plans and these rebate rules apply to Medicare. If the rules apply to all, definitely the list price will go down. 2:18:30 Albert Bourla: The list price is not irrelevant, it's very relevant for a lot of people because they have to pay list price during the deductible period. However if the rebate rule is applied, then they become irrelevant because the patients will not be paying the list price at the purchase point. 2:19:10 Sen. John Thune (R-SD): How would manufacturers respond if the rebate rule were finalized for government programs? I mean, what does that what does that mean for the commercial market? Albert Bourla: Senator, as I said before, all these proposals that they're discussing, [undistinguishable], eliminating the rebate rule, are transformational and will disrupt the way we do business. I don't know exactly how the system will evolve, and I really don't favor a bifurcated system. I would like to have a transparent single system across both parts. So we need to see how the whole thing will evolve. 2:25:26 Johnny Isakson (R-GA): Who sets the discount and who sets the rebate? 2:26:20 Richard Gonzalez: We negotiate with payers, so managed care and PBMs— Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): You’re a supplier though, so you have to go negotiate with the PBMs and those people, is that right? Richard Gonzalez: Correct, and they negotiate aggressively. Sen. Isakson: Is that pretty much true with everybody, that they're the major component between the end retail consumer price and the origin of the product? Richard Gonzalez: Yes, Senator. Sen. Isakson: Well, that seems like that's someplace we ought to focus, because that's where the distorted numbers come in. Johnson & Johnson, Janssen, in your testimony, you talked about your average list price of 8.1%, up, but an average net price change of only 4.6%. So while your gross went up 8.6, your net went down 4.6 In the same pricing period. How does that happen? If you're setting the price, how does it not go up on the bottom? Jennifer Taubert: Yeah, and in fact, in 2018, our net price actually declined 8.6%, so even more than that. The intermediaries in the system are very, very effective negotiators— Sen. Isakson: Tell me who the intermediaries are. Jennifer Taubert: Those would be the PBMs and the insurers. Sen. Isakson: …and the insurance companies? Jennifer Taubert: Right, and they set the formularies for patients. Sen. Isakson: And they're not the same. They're two different people? Jennifer Taubert: Yes, correct. 2:40:45 James Lankford (R-OK): All of you have mentioned the rebate issue has been a problem and that insurance companies and PBMs are very effective negotiators. Part of the challenge of this is, health insurance companies pay their PBM based on the quality of their negotiation skills, cutting a price off the list price. And so if a list price is higher and a rebate is higher, that also gives preference to them. So the difficulty is, as you raise list price, and the rebate gets larger, the insurance company gives that preference, making it harder for biosimilars. Am I tracking this correctly? 2:43:00 Albert Bourla: Here in the US, the penetration of biosimilars is much lower than in other places, but it is disproportional to different parts of the US healthcare system. For example, in open systems, systems where the decision maker it is a PBM, the one biosimilar we have has a market share of 5% in the US. In closed systems, in systems like Kaiser, for example, integrated healthcare systems where the one who decides has the whole cost of the healthcare system in its interest, we have 73%. 5% and 73% for the same product. I agree with what Mr. Fraser said that we need to create incentives, but I would add also that we need to break this rebate trap that creates significant disincentives for providers, and the healthcare system, and insurance companies. 3:19:25 Kenneth Frazier: If you went back a few years ago, when we negotiated to get our drugs on formulary, our goal was to have the lowest copay by patients. Today the goal is to pay into the supply chain the biggest rebate, and so that actually puts the patient at a disadvantage since they're the only ones that are paying a portion of the list price. The list price is actually working against the patient. 3:19:50 Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT): Why do we have a system today? Where you all are setting, I'll just say very, very high list prices, which is the starting point for negotiation. Why? Olivier Brandicourt: Senator, we're trying to get formulary position. With those list prices. High list price, high rebates. It's a preferred position. Unfortunately the preferred position doesn't automatically ensure affordability at the end. Kenneth C. Frazier: Senator, If you bring a product to the market with a low list price in this system, you get punished financially and you get no uptake because everyone in the supply chain makes money as a result of a higher list price. April 9, 2019 Senate Committee on Finance Witnesses: Steve Miller, MD, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer, Cigna Corporation Derica Rice, Former Executive Vice President and President, CVS Health and CVS Caremark William Fleming, Pharm.D., Segment President, Healthcare Services, Humana Inc. John Prince, Chief Executive Officer, OptumRx Mike Kolar, JD, Interim President & CEO, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Prime Therapeutics LLC Clips Sen. Ron Wyden (D - OR): Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers first showed up decades ago, back when prescription drugs were being utilized more extensively. The PBMs told the insurance companies, “we're the ones who know drug pricing, we will handle the negotiations for you.” But there is little evidence that the pharmaceutical benefit managers have actually held down the prices in a meaningful way. In fact, most of the evidence shows just the opposite. Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers actually make more money when they pick a higher price drug over a lower price drug. Colleagues, let's remember that all the way through this discussion, benefit managers make more money when they pick a higher price drug over a lower price drug. The logic on this isn't exactly complicated, graduate-level economics. PBM profits are based on taking their slice of the prescription-drug pie. More expensive drugs means there's a bigger pie. When there's a bigger pie, [there are] bigger slices for the pharmaceutical benefit managers. 50:24 Mike Kolar: Rebates and the role they play have been key areas of focus in the drug cost debate. In our view, rebates are a powerful tool to offset high prices, which are set by pharmaceutical companies, and pharmaceutical companies alone. The fact that rebates are not offered on many of the highest cost drugs, and that studies show no correlation between prices and rebates underscore that rebates are a key to mitigating rather than causing high drug prices. We pass rebates through fully to our plans, and we believe our plans should be able to choose how to apply these rebates in ways that best serve their members and market needs by balancing premiums and cost sharing. 56:05 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): I'd like to talk about consolidation, including the recent integration of PBMs with insurance companies. Last year I wrote to the Justice Department on the issues, it reported that the three largest PBMs who are before us today now covers 71% of Medicaid, Medicare Part D enrollees and 86% of standalone Drug Plan enrollees. 57:45 Derica Rice: This is a highly competitive space. In addition to the three that you've pointed out here, CMS has noted there are over 60 PBMs across the US. Therefore, the competition, there's many options for the employers that are out there, government entities, as well as unions to choose from given their specific needs. 1:10:35 Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): So when we look at Express Scripts has 100 million Americans covered, CVS 90 million, OptumRx 65 million, Prime Therapeutics 27 million, Humana 21 million, and yet Americans still pay the highest prices in the world. Even though you are negotiating for millions of people. The VA has its own pharmacy benefit manager service, they negotiate for 9 million veterans, and they pay, on average, 40% less for the same drugs that the rest of the healthcare system pays for. Despite greater volume, you are unable to secure these kinds of low prices. With all due respect, you guys are pretty bad negotiators. Given the fact that the VA can get 40% less. And so I'd like to know from each of you why that's the case. Dr. Miller? Steve Miller [Former EVP and Chief Clinical Officer, Cigna Corporation]: Yes. Part of the equation is giving patients choice. At the VA, they actually limit their formulary more than any of us at this table do. So oftentimes, they'll have one beta blocker, one ace inhibitor. And so if it's going to get to that level of choice, then we could get better prices also. Sen. Stabenow: Let me jump in, in the interest of time. I know you create nationwide drug formularies, you have pre-authorization, you give preferred status to certain medications. So you don't use any of those tools that the VA is using? Because you do. Steve Miller: We definitely use those tools, but we also give people choice. It's crucial for both physicians and patients to have the choice of the products they want to be able to access. Many of our plans want us to have broad formularies and when you have more products, it means you move less market share. Sen. Stabenow: So basically you’re saying a 40% premium gives them more choice. 1:24:30 Sherrod Brown (D-OH): If the administration's rebate rule were finalized as proposed, would you in some way be required to change the way you do business? Mike Kolar: Yes, Senator we would. John Prince: Yes. William Fleming: Yes. Derica Rice: Yes. Steve Miller: Yes. Sen. Brown: Thank you. 1:25:05 Sherrod Brown (D-OH): What percentage of prescriptions that you fill across Part D actually receive a rebate? Roughly what percentage? Mike Kolar: So Senator, approximately 8% of the prescriptions that we cover in Part D are associated with a rebate. Sen. Brown: Okay, Mr. Prince? John Prince: Senator, I don’t know the exact number, I know our overall business is about 7%. Sen. Brown: Okay, thank you. William Fleming: About 7-8%. Derica Rice: Senator, I do not know the exact number but we pass through 100% of all rebates and discounts. Sen. Brown: [Grunt] Steve Miller: 90% of the prescriptions will be generic. Of the 10% that are branded, about two-thirds have rebates. So it's about seven-- Sen. Brown: 7-8% like the others. Okay. To recap, PBMs do not set drug prices. Forcing you to change the way you do business -- as the administration's rule would — will not change that fact. And while the rule might impact a small percentage of drugs and Part D that receive a rebate, it does nothing to lower costs, as your answer suggests, for the other 90% of prescriptions you fill. Most importantly, absolutely nothing in the proposed rule would require Secretary Azar’s former employer or any other pharma company to lower the price of insulin or any other drug. It's important to establish that, so thank you for that. 1:41:40 Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV): Let me ask you, Dr. Fleming, in your testimony, you say Humana’s analysis of the rebate rule -- and we're talking about the administration's rebate rule now — found that approximately 17% of beneficiaries will see savings at the pharmacy counter as a result of this rule. Can you tell me a little bit more about who these people are? And what kind of conditions do they have? William Fleming: Senator, there will be a number of members who are taking brand drugs for which we get rebates and so it could vary all the way from the common chronic conditions, things like diabetes or hypertension or high cholesterol, all the way over to occasionally, not usually, but occasionally on the specialty drug side. When you think of some medications like treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, places where there's competition. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD254: Baby Formula Shortage

26 juni 2022 | 85 min

After multiple formula-related infant deaths were reported to the FDA in February, samples from Abbott Laboratories' Sturgis, Michigan baby formula production facility tested positive for cronobacter, triggering a recall and a subsequent formula shortage. In this episode, Jen uncovers monopoly and neglect in the baby formula production industry, lack of oversight by the FDA, and the United States' refusal to adopt the World Health Organization's International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Formula Shortage Abbott. Jun 15, 2022. May 26, 2022. U.S. Senate. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. May 18, 2022. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Annie Gasparro and Jaewon Kang. May 12, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Feb 2022. Baby Formula Monopoly Matt Stoller. May 13, 2022. BIG by Matt Stoler on Substack. Sam Knight. Apr 23, 2022. Truthout. FDA Failure March 24, 2022. U.S. House of Representatives. Poisoned Baby Food House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Staff. Feb 4, 2021. Operation Fly Formula Brenda Goodman and Deidre McPhillips. Jun 10, 2022. CNN. The White House. May 22, 2022. White House Briefing Room: Statements and Releases. 60 minutes Segment Bill Whitaker. May 22, 2022. 60 Minutes. The WHO Code and Formula Marketing The World Health Organization. Apr 28, 2022. The World Health Organization. Apr 28, 2022. The World Health Organization. La Leche League International. Bonnie Goldstein. Jul 13, 2018. Project on Government Oversight. The World Health Organization. Jan 27, 1981. Fisher-Price Update Katie Porter [@RepKatiePorter]. Jun 15, 2022. Twitter. Laws Audio Sources May 26, 2022 Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The committee concluded a hearing to examine the infant formula crisis, focusing on addressing the shortage and getting formula on shelves. Witnesses: Robert M. Califf, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration Clips 37:26 Dr. Robert Califf: Frankly, the inspection results were shocking. Standing water, cracks in key equipment that presented the potential for bacterial contamination to persist, particularly in the presence of moisture, leaks in the roof, a previous citation of inadequate hand washing and current poor foot sanitation, bacteria growing from multiple sides, and many signs of a disappointing lack of attention to the culture of safety in this product that is so essential to the lives of our most precious people. 38:14 Dr. Robert Califf: As soon as we receive positive cronobacter results from environmental samples at the facility that we collected during the inspection, we contacted Abbott to ask the company to issue a voluntary recall. The need to take urgent action to protect the most vulnerable of all of our people -- infants -- presented a dilemma. This was the largest plant of the dominant manufacturer, and it was the sole source of a number of metabolic formulas essential for viability of infants with no substitution possible, because Abbott had no backup plan. We knew that ceasing plant operations would create supply problems, but we had no choice given the unsanitary conditions. 50:50 Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC): Why haven't you waived labeling requirements from trusted manufacturers in countries like the UK, Australia or Canada? Couldn't manufacturers provide temporary labels on imported formula? Cans if the label is printed in a language other than English until US manufacturing is restored? Some countries have higher nutritional requirements. Why can't we provide a waiver for their products to come into the country? Dr. Robert Califf: We've waived many of the requirements that are the ones that make sense, but the directions have to be clear to Americans in language that's understandable so the formula can be mixed correctly. An error in mixing up the formula for example, can lead to a very sick infant not getting the right nutrition. 2:16:18 Dr. Robert Califf: We saw the lack of quality in the system and the lack of accountability for the problems that were there. And so we had to invoke the Justice Department to negotiate a consent decree, which is essentially Abbott saying, “Yes, we had all these problems. Here's exactly what we're going to do to fix them.” For legal reasons, I can't discuss the exact details of the negotiation, but let's just say that it took a little armwrestling to get to the point where the Justice Department got Abbott to sign the consent decree. May 25, 2022 Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Witnesses: Robert M. Califf, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration Frank Yiannas, Deputy Commissioner, Food Policy and Response, Food and Drug Administration Susan Mayne, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration Chris Calamari, Senior Vice President of U.S. Nutrition, Abbott Robert Cleveland, Senior Vice President of the Nutrition Business Unit for the US and Europe, Mead Johnson Nutrition Scott Fitz, Vice President of Technical and Production, Gerber Clips 41:55 Robert Califf: Because of the lack of the diversification of this market in the absence of a central hub for integrating supply chains, we concluded early on that getting the Sturgis facility up and running safely was a top priority. But we had no confidence in the integrity of the Abbott quality program at this facility. Accordingly, we initiated proceedings toward a consent decree, which requires Abbott to undertake steps to assure safe production of formula, including hiring an outside expert with reporting to FDA. 43:03 Robert Califf: Despite the overall numbers showing diminished but steady supply, we knew that distribution was an issue. Some areas were experiencing significant shortages, but overall, there was enough formula to go around. About a month ago, the reports of shortages on the shelf proliferated, although there was not a drop in production. This increase in consumption most likely represents heightened concern of parents and caregivers about shortages, leading to an understandable effort to purchase ahead to ensure adequate supply at home. This type of cycle has happened with other products throughout the pandemic, and we realize that the only solution is to have adequate supply to make sure shelves are stocked. 45:57 Robert Califf: Abbott's enormous market share left it with a responsibility for producing safe infant formula that was not met. We will do everything in our power to work with Abbott to make this happen as quickly and as safely possible, but this timing is an Abbott's control. 46:35 Robert Califf: Across the industry we regulate, we are seeing evidence that the just-in-time distribution system, market concentration, and sole-source contracting are leading to shortages. Multiple reports to Congress call for improved supply chain management. Until regulatory agencies have digital access to critical supply chain information and personnel to do the work, we will continue to react to supply chain disruptions rather than intervening to prevent them. 1:01:113 Robert Califf: It’s really important for people to go to the HHS website: hhs.gov/formula. There you'll find the hotline for all the manufacturers and helpful information about where to go. 1:04:12 Robert Califf: You would be surprised to know there's no just-in-time system where all the FDA employees can see what's going on. What we really need is access to the information that the manufacturers have about each of their individual supply chains. They each have their individual supply chains, but there is no national system to make sure the supplies getting where it needs to go. 1:05:11 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA): Did FDA not have a data analytics tool to monitor the supply chains of various products, including infant formula? Robert Califf: We requested funding for a tool and because we didn't get the funding, we cobbled it together. It's a start, but it's nowhere near — you know, again, I was at Google for five years. The technology at FDA, and in many federal agencies is outmoded and needs an upfit, there's just no question about. 1:07:33 Susan Mayne: We have been in discussion with infant formula manufacturers throughout COVID, but discussion is not the same thing as data and we do not have the authorities to demand data from the companies to get necessarily all the information that you would want to have to really monitor the supply chains as Dr. Califf indicated. 1:10:30 Robert Califf: But given what we saw, the only way we could have confidence was through a consent decree, where we literally have oversight of every single step. When we met with the CEO yesterday, there were hundreds of steps that they went through that they're having to do, many of which have already been done. So it's only if we have direct oversight over it that I would have confidence, but I do have confidence that we are seeing every single step both physically in-person, and also through following the documentation and the outside expert. 1:10:53 Rep. David B. McKinley (R-WV): How will the passage of last week's FDA Bill increase the production of baby formula? Robert Califf: Production is increasing already — Rep. David McKinley The criticism, that they said that on these various tweets — it was not just one there were several — that said it was unnecessary. So I want to know, how do we increase, how do we get back to production? How to put in $28 million? How would that how's that gonna increase production? Robert Califf: Well, remember, the Abbot plant needs to get up and running, we’ve got to oversee and micro detail to make sure that it's done correctly. And as we bring in supply from other countries, remember, we already have overseas plants that we import from on a regular basis, almost double digits. So as we bring that product in, we’ve got to inspect it, make sure it's of the quality that we expect in America of formula and we need to upgrade our information systems, as I've already said, to make sure that as all this goes on, we can keep track of it and make sure that we're coordinated. 1:44:55 Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA): Is there any early warning system for products like baby formula? And not just the ingredients but for formula itself or manufacturer would let you know if they're running short or anticipate a shortage? Robert Califf: First of all, let me thank you for being a pediatrician. I sometimes call the Academy of Pediatrics just for the positive vibes that you all exude as a profession. But no, there is not such a warning system. We've repeatedly asked for that authority and have not been granted it. The industry by and large has opposed it. 1:52:21 Susan Mayne: What the data show is, we can't rule in or rule out whether or not those infants, their cronobacter was caused by this plant. The data just simply can't be used to inform it. Rep. John Joyce (R-PA): But the genetic testing you did. It does not match from the plant, correct? Susan Mayne: That is correct. But what we did not have is any sampling done at the same time that the product was manufactured that was consumed by the individuals who got sick, so we didn't have that every director 2:08:57 Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH): I know that in this part of the country, I'm in New Hampshire, we have milk banks of mother's breast milk. And I'm wondering what is the regulation by the FDA? And can we assure our constituents that breast milk from milk bank is safe and is thoroughly vetted by the FDA? Robert Califf: You're asking some very good questions. I'm gonna refer this to Dr. Mayne who probably would have the best answer. Susan Mayne: Thank you, Congresswoman. So human breast milk is regulated as a food. And so that is reassuring and they have to have proper screening protocols and things like that in place to make sure that the donors that are donating the milk, get that, that's critical for human food safety. So that's how I would respond. Thank you. 2:26:28 Robert Califf: You would think that a critical industry like this would have resilience plans, redundancy, but we don't even have legal authority right now to require that the firms have a plan for potential failures and resilience. That’s something we've asked Congress for every year for a while, and we're asking for it again. So I hope that it happens this time. I'd also add that this is not unique to this industry. We are seeing this across the entire device and medical supply industry with frequent failures as exemplified by the 60 minutes show and the contrast medium problem that I talked about. We have gone to a just-in-time, large single source contracts that lead to lack of diversification in the industry and the industry has fought us tooth and nail on requiring that there be insight into their supply chains, so that the sum of all of the industries leads to the the avoidance of preemption. We'd like to be able to stress test and prevent these things from happening rather than waiting until they happen, and then scrambling. 2:58:58 Susan Mayne: What we've seen is, first the strain of the COVID 19 pandemic, then the strain of the recall, and now we've got the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And one of the things that we know is the Ukraine region is one of the world's biggest exporters of products like sunflower oil. Sunflower oil is used as an ingredient in many food products, including infant formula. And so we have been working with the manufacturers should they be unable to maintain their supply of sunflower oil, what they would replace it with and make sure that that would meet the nutritional requirements for infant formula. 3:26:28 Chris Calamari: We plan to start production at Sturgis the first week of June. We will begin with the production of EleCare, before turning to the production of other formulas and Similac. From restart, we estimate that it will take six to eight weeks before product is available on shelves. 4:28:51 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Your testimony also mentions global supply chain challenges as a factor the company has had to contend with. What, if any, steps has Gerber taken to maintain its production and distribution supply? Scott Fitz: Thank you for the question. Certainly, our industry is not immune to the global supply chain challenges brought on by the pandemic. We struggled with materials supply issues, intermittent materials supply issues, whether it be ingredients or packaging components, we struggled struggled with the material quality issues related to the pandemic, we've had transportation and logistics issues, just getting trucks and truck drivers available to move the products and supplies that we need. And we've had COVID related labor challenges and higher turnover than normal are all things that have impacted us. Through the course of the pandemic though we've we've resolved these on an ongoing basis, one at a time as they've come up. We are putting trying to put in more robust business continuity plans in place for critical components and ones that we know we will have challenges with in the future. 4:30:50 Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Did you not think the FDA should be notified or at least aware of your struggle? Scott Fitz: Should FDA be aware of our struggle? Rep. Tonko: Yeah, should you have shared those concerns for supply chain? Scott Fitz: If it could help, we would certainly be willing to do that. Yes. Rep. Tonko: What should you have told us during the last year? Scott Fitz: Well, as I testified, the issues that have come up for us, we've been able to resolve. Through the last six months our in-stock rates have averaged 86%. 4:35:55 Chris Calamari: On the horizon, we see in the manufacture of infant formula agricultural oils are absolutely essential, paper is absolutely essential, the cost of fuel to supply and distribute the product is essential. So I would call out those key elements ranging from agricultural oils to the cost to deliver the product would be the biggest areas of focus. 4:41:42 Robert Cleveland: We reached out and spoke to the USDA almost immediately seeking flexibility, for example in the size format. And while that sounds small, it's very significant because what that means is the WIC consumer doesn't have to look for one particular size of product at the shelf. They can find any size of the shelf to fulfill their their benefits with and that's allowed us to continue production and step up to meet the requirements of those consumers. We've since worked with the USDA to find a number of other ways to flexibly administer the program, because really, the focus for the WIC consumer is the same as the others, making sure she has safe access to formula and doesn't have to compete with non-WIC consumers to get it. So the more sizes, the more formats, the more manufacturers that the program can support, the more likely she is to have her needs met. 4:47:35 Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA): The baby formula industry in our country is really unique in that about 90% of the product is made right here in the United States. And the vast majority is made by your three companies [Abbott, Gerber, and Mead Johnson]. And so it should be no surprise that when something goes wrong, like what happened in Sturgis, it really rocks the whole industry and the facility in Sturgis is responsible for 40% of Abbott's formula on the market and makes up about 20% of the total formula on the market in the US, and that is really significant, especially when this year Similac has the contract with WIC. 5:10:40 Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA): Okay, the supply chain issues, is that because some of the ingredients were coming from other countries? Chris Calamari: Representative, yes, so global supply chains are such that we have ingredients coming from global sources and that is the nature of our supply chain. 5:19:29 Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): Let's say my daughter, who has a six-week-old baby, called me up and said, “I need to get some formula for my baby. And my store shelves are bare.” What can we tell them between now and all of the emergency measures we put into place to start putting formula on the shelves? Who should they call? Where can they go to try to get some of this limited product right now? What's the practical suggestion? Robert Cleveland: It's very unfortunate that you have to answer that question or ask that question, but let me do my best to answer it. I think the shelves — the reality is they don't have anywhere near the product that they do. So one of the things I've often said during this crisis is it takes a village to raise a child. In this case, sometimes it's taking a village to find infant formula. So the first thing to do is work with your network of family and friends, and as they go to the stores, look for the product that's there. And I've seen many mothers and grandmothers and fathers and cousins doing this on the shelf. You can call our Consumer Response Center. Now to be fair, those folks are doing a phenomenal job of fielding waves and waves of calls. But we will help you if you call. That's one other resource. The physician's office is another. Sometimes they do have the samples that are required, and they can help transition between finding product on the shelf. And then I would be sure to look online as well as in-person at the store and be open to other formats. Many mothers and fathers have a particular type of format they like. You may need to be more flexible in the format that you use. But all infant formula regulated by the FDA is safe for your infant, whether it's a liquid or a powder or what size it's in. And so I would say shop widely. See your doctor or enroll your family friends, give us a call if you need to, and be flexible. May 25, 2022 Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Witnesses: Ginger Carney, Director of Clinical Nutrition, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Sarah Chamberlin, Executive Director, National PKU News Michael Gay, Owner and Manager, Food Fresh Brian Ronholm, Director of Food Policy, Consumer Reports Linkedin Clips 32:29 Michael Gay: WIC’s rigid rules have made it difficult for the program to be responsive to critical shortages throughout the pandemic and now during the formula crisis. Substitutions may be easily available when situations like this arise. The emergency waivers instituted by the USDA during the pandemic have provided flexibility in some states, but those waivers were only available because of the pandemic. To prevent this issue from happening in the future, Congress should allow WIC vendors operating during severe supply shortages, disasters or public health emergencies to automatically substitute limited WIC approved products impacted by supply chain disruptions. The USDA should direct states to include product substitutions for WIC in their emergency preparedness plan. These changes would have allowed families to immediately switch to another formula in states with shortages allowing for smooth continuation of feeding infants. 33:27 Michael Gay: Secondly, there's a significant need for USDA to examine the long term effects of cost containment, competitiveness and peer grouping formulas for WIC vendors. States operate a peer group system to monitor vendor prices and determine reimbursements are cost competitive. These cost containment measures have led to reduced retail embursement and reduced retailer participation in the program, leading to fewer locations for families to access formula. 33:55 Michael Gay: WIC infant formula cost containment measures have led to extreme consolidation in the formula marketplace, leaving it highly vulnerable to supply disruptions like we are experiencing now. These contracting policies must be reviewed to ensure future food security of the nation's babies and families. 41:50 Brian Ronholm: The evidence suggests that the agency was too slow to act, failed to take this issue seriously, and was not forthcoming with information to parents and caregivers. The infant formula crisis exposed a greater structure and culture problem that has long existed FDA. This was merely one symptom of the overall problem, and it is clear that confidence in the food program at the FDA is eroding. A big reason for this is the food program has second class status within FDA, and it's resulted in serious problems. The FDA also lacks a single, full-time, fully empowered expert leader of all aspects of the food program. As you know, in recent decades, most FDA commissioners have been medical specialists who naturally focus on the programs impacting medical products. This is certainly warranted considering the impact these programs have on public health. And the pandemic is a perfect example of this. However, this usually results in intense competition for the commissioner’s time and support and focus on the food program is typically what has suffered under this dynamic. It has become impossible for an FDA commissioner to possess the bandwidth to provide leadership and accountability to a set of offices that regulates 80% of our food supply. 51:45 Ginger Carney: I would want to warn parents not to make homemade formulas — the American Academy of Pediatrics warns against that — they should not dilute the formula, as both of these situations can lead to disastrous results and lead possibly to hospital admissions. 56:40 Brian Ronholm: Splitting out the food safety functions of the agency as it exists now and creating separate agencies while still remaining under the HHS umbrella would be an effective approach that would get to the issues that I think everyone has become aware of during this crisis. 59:32 Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT): We now have 15 agencies at the federal level who deal with some form of food safety, the principal ones are USDA and FDA. It should be one single agency! 1:06:30 Michael Gay: In a rural area such as ours, probably 85-90% of my formula is WIC formula, which is just down to one type of formula. So even like today, for example, or my truck Monday, I got about 20 cases of Gerber formula in a different variety, but that's not approved on what and the Georgia WIC office just approved some substitutions for formulas that were, you know, prescribed by the doctor with the contract formula. So therein lies the problem is there's no easy way to substitute that for the customer. 1:23:29 Brian Ronholm: Four companies that control 90% of the market and only three of them actually bid on WIC rebate contracts. Abbott is by far the largest one and I believe they have contracts in 30 or 31 states, I think it was the latest figure. So when those contracts come up, these companies submit based on their ability to meet the demand in a particular state, and Abbott is usually the only one that's big enough to do that. We mentioned that they have a large part of the market, I think when it comes to the WIC market, they have approximately 55 to 60% of the WIC market. So that's a significant size of the market that it really needs to be examined so when situations like this hit, how does it impact that particular….And it's obviously going to have a bigger impact because these companies use the WIC market to get into the overall non-WIC market to even increase the share of their market, so that creates further shortage problems. 1:40:35 Ginger Carney: One thing that we really haven't talked about is the WHO code for marketing breast milk substitutes. And that's what these formulas are, they’re breast milk substitutes. So if we look at the WHO code in other countries, other developed countries are abiding by the WHO code and this gives guidelines for how companies can market their infant formulas in a safe way. So maybe we should go back to that and think about what is it about the WHO code that would benefit all of our families in the country so that they are assured when they do have to reach for infant formula when breastfeeding cannot be an option or will not be an option? What are the things that are marketed directly to our families that tell them about the formula? 1:44:20 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): Half of all US formula consumption goes through the WIC program, which provides free infant formula as we've been talking about today, where states negotiate bulk discounts in exchange for market exclusivity. Now, I'll take you back to 1989 when Republican President George Bush enacted legislation requiring all state WIC programs to use competitive bidding for the purchase of infant formula. In practice, this means that the state of Florida for example is required to use a single supplier for the entire state supply of WIC baby formula. The competitive bidding process has yielded $1.3 billion to $2 billion a year in savings and allowing WIC to serve about 2 million more participants annually because of the discounts. However, when there's a supply shock caused by one of the four market participants, like what happened with Abbott in this case, it creates a serious risk to infant health across the country. 1:48:00 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): We know that in Europe, they consistently produce a baby formula surplus. But there are rigid labeling and nutritional requirements for formula containers here in the US that the FDA requires and they prohibit the sale of many European-made products, even though the formulas themselves meet FDA nutritional and purity standards. So what sort of policy changes would you like to see undertaken to ease restrictions on baby formula imports, while still ensuring that the product meets our safety standards? Brian Ronholm: Yeah, I think it's critical that we maintain those safety standards that FDA has set on infant formula, that's absolutely critical. There's a comfort level with consumers when they're able to purchase something that they know is an FDA inspected facility overseas. But to your point, sometimes these regulations, these really strict regulations are thinly disguised trade protection measures. And so you know, that's certainly an issue that we'd have to examine carefully to make sure that we can have that access. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD253: Escalation of War

6 juni 2022 | 105 min

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Congress has signed four laws that send enormous amounts of money and weapons to Ukraine, attempting to punish Russia for President Putin’s invasion. In this episode, we examine these laws to find out where our money will actually go and attempt to understand the shifting goals of the Biden administration. The big picture, as it’s being explained to Congress, differs from what we’re being sold. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Content Ukraine and Russia Syria World Trade System Russian Blockade Shane Harris. May 24, 2022. The Washington Post. NATO Expansion Jim Garamone. Jun 1, 2022. U.S. Department of Defense News. Matthew Lee. May 27, 2022. AP News. Ted Kemp. May 19, 2022. CNBC. U.S. Involvement in Ukraine Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes. May 5, 2022. The New York Times. Julian E. Barnes, Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt. May 4, 2022. The New York Times. Private Security Contractors Christopher Caldwell. May 31, 2022. The New York Times. Joaquin Sapien and Joshua Kaplan. May 27, 2022. ProPublica. H.R. 7691 Background How It Passed Glenn Greenwald. May 13, 2022. Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Catie Edmondson and Emily Cochrane. May 10, 2022. The New York Times. Republican Holdouts Glenn Greenwald and Anthony Tobin. May 24, 2022. Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Amy Cheng and Eugene Scott. May 13, 2022. The Washington Post. Morgan Watkins. May 13, 2022. USA Today. Stephen Semler. May 26, 2022. Jacobin. Biden Signs in South Korea Kate Sullivan. May 20, 2022. CNN. How Much Money, and Where Will It Go? Stephen Semler. May 23, 2022. Speaking Security on Substack. May 11 2022. Congressional Budget Office. Christina Arabia, Andrew Bowen, and Cory Welt. Updated Apr 29, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Legal Information Institute, Cornell School of Law. Representatives’ Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Stocks Kimberly Leonard. May 19, 2022. Insider. Kimberly Leonard. Mar 21, 2022. Insider. Marjorie Taylor Green [@RepMTG]. Feb 24, 2022. Twitter. GovTrack. “Rules Based Order” Anthony Dworkin. Sep 8, 2020. *The World Trade Organization Inequality.org Apr 23, 2007. NPR. Crimea Kenneth Rapoza. Mar 20, 2015. Forbes. March 16, 2014. BBC. Shifting Strategies Economic War Larry Elliott. Jun 2, 2022. The Guardian. Nigel Gould-Davies. May 12, 2022. The New York Times. Weapons Escalation Jake Johnson. Jun 1, 2022. Common Dreams. C. Todd Lopez. Jun 1, 2022. U.S. Department of Defense News. Greg Norman. Jun 1, 2022. Fox News. Christian Esch et al. May 30, 2022. Spiegel International. Alastair Gale. May 24, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. Mike Stone. Mar 11, 2022. Reuters. Secretary Austin and the Pentagon Jim Garamone. May 20, 2022. U.S. Department of Defense News. Natasha Bertrand et al. Apr 26, 2022. CNN. David Sanger. Apr 25, 2022. The New York Times. Mike Stone. Apr 12, 2022. Reuters. Glenn Greenwald. Dec 8, 2020. Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Democrats Still All In Marc Santora. May 1, 2022. The New York Times. RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service. May 1, 2022. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Mar 26, 2022. Sky News. The Laws Passed by Voice Vote in the Senate (amended the original House bill) (on original version) (final version) Audio Sources May 23, 2022 Clips Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Speaking about Ukraine, first what Putin, Putin’s war on Ukraine and Ukraine's determination, resolving the sacrifices they've made for the cause of freedom has united the whole world, that it's united, US Senate and Congress, I think like nothing I've seen in my lifetime. I think we're totally committed to supporting Ukraine, in every way possible, as long as we have the rest of NATO and the free world helping. I think we're all in this together. And I am totally committed as one person to seeing Ukraine to the end with a win, not basically resolving in some type of a treaty. I don't think that is where we are and where we should be. Reporter: Can I just follow up and ask you what you mean by a win for Ukraine? ** Sen. Joe Manchin:** I mean, basically moving Putin back to Russia and hopefully getting rid of Putin. May 19, 2022 Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation Witnesses: Charles Edel, Ph.D., Australia Chair and Senior Adviser, Center for Strategic and International Studies Bonny Lin, Ph.D., Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies Tanvi Madan, Ph.D.Director, The India Project, Brookings Institution Dan Blumenthal, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director of Asian Studies, American Enterprise Institute Clips 6:57 Tanvi Madan: One implication that is already evident, most visibly in Sri Lanka, is the adverse economic impact. The rise in commodity prices in particular has led to fiscal food and energy security concerns and these, in turn, could have political implications and could create a strategic vacuum. 7:15 Tanvi Madan: A separate and longer term economic impact of the crisis could be renewed goals, perhaps especially in India, for self reliance and building resilience not just against Chinese pressure, but also against Western sanctions. 7:28 Tanvi Madan: The second potential implication of the Russia-Ukraine war could be that Beijing might seek to take advantage in the Indo-Pacific while the world's focus is on Europe, between the Taiwan or the East or South China Sea contingencies. The contingency that would have the most direct impact in South Asia would be further action by the PLA at the China-India boundary, or at the Bhutan-China boundary that could draw in India. This potential for Sino-Indian crisis escalation has indeed shaped Delhi's response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite its recent diversification efforts, the Indian military continues to be dependent, if not over dependent, on Russia for supplies and spare parts for crucial frontline equipment. India has also been concerned about moving Moscow away from neutrality towards taking China's side. Nonetheless, there is simultaneously concern that Russia's war with Ukraine might, in any case, make Moscow more beholden to Beijing and also less able to supply India, and that will have implications for India's military readiness. 10:10 Tanvi Madan: The fourth implication in South Asia could flow from the war's effect on the Russia-China relationship flows. The Sino-Russian ties in recent years have benefited Pakistan. However, they have been of great concern to India. If China-Russia relations deepened further, it could lead to increased Indian concern about Russian reliability. And a Dheli that is concerned about Moscow's ability and willingness to supply India militarily or supported in international forums will seek alternative partners and suppliers a potential opportunity for the US as well as its allies and partners. 18:15 Bonny Lin: China has shifted its position on the Ukraine conflict to be less fully pro Russia. Xi Jinping has expressed that he is deeply grieved by the outbreak of war. China has engaged in diplomacy, called for a ceasefire, proposed a six point humanitarian initiative, and provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine. China's position on Ukraine, however, is far from neutral. China has not condemned Russia or called its aggression an evasion. Xi has yet to speak to President Zelenskyy. There is no evidence that China has sought to pressure Russia in any way or form. China has amplified Russian disinformation and pushed back against Western sanctions. To date, Beijing has not provided direct military support to Russia and has not engaged in systemic efforts to help Russia evade sanctions. However, China's ambassador to Russia has encouraged Chinese companies to quote "fill the void in the Russian market." 19:14 Bonny Lin: The Ukraine crisis has reinforced China's view that US military expansion could provoke conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese interlocutors have voiced concern that the United States and NATO are fighting Russia today, but might fight China next. China views NATO expansion as one of the key causes of the Korean conflict and sees parallels between NATO activities in Europe and US efforts in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing is worried that increasing US and ally support for Taiwan and other regional allies and partners elevates the risk of US-China military confrontation. This pessimistic assessment is why Beijing will continue to stand by Russia as a close strategic partner. 19:56 Bonny Lin: The Ukraine crisis has reinforced and strengthened China's desire to be more self reliant. China is investing more to ensure the security of food, energy, and raw materials. Beijing is also seeking more resilient industrial supply chains, as well as PRC-led systems, including alternatives to Swift. At the same time, Beijing is likely to further cultivate dependencies on China, such that any potential Western led sanctions on China or international-community-led sanctions on China in the future will be painful to the West and difficult to sustain. 21:15 Bonny Lin: China has observed that Russia put its nuclear and strategic forces on high alert and NATO did not send conventional forces to Ukraine. This is leading China to question its nuclear policy and posture. 21:57 Bonny Lin: As Beijing watches the Western and particularly G7-led unity among advanced democracies, it is also seeing that a number of countries in the developing world are not joining in on the sanctions. As a result, Beijing has tried to increase its influence and in many ways building on Russian influence in developing regions. And Beijing is likely to try to get all that influence moving forward. 24:24 Dan Blumenthal: China took the opportunity of Russia's invasion on February 4 to lay out a document that criticizes, very specifically, almost all aspects of United States global policy. Very specifically, including Oculus for NATO enlargement to Oculus to the Indo Pacific strategy. It got Russia to sign up to Xi Jinping's theory that we're in a new era of geopolitics that will replace US leadership, that US leadership is faulty and it's dividing the world into blocks such as NATO, that NATO expansion is the problem, that Indo-Pacific strategy is the same thing as NATO expansion. 25:45 Dan Blumenthal: We should take very seriously what they say, particularly in Chinese, and what they're saying is very clearly pro-Russia and very clear, specific, searing critiques of the US-led world order. 26:47 Dan Blumenthal: And frankly, while the West is unified, and the US and the West and some of our Asian allies are unified, most of the rest of the world is not with us on this issue of China and Russia being these authoritarian, revisionist great powers, and that's a real problem. May 18, 2022 House Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Witnesses: Dr. Hanna Notte, Senior Research Associate, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Dr. Frederic Wehrey, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Caitlin Welsh, Director of the Global Food Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies Grant Rumley, Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Clips 12:55 Hanna Notte: First, Moscow's military presence in Syria has given it a buffer zone on its southern flank to counter perceived threats from within the region, but also to deter NATO outside the European theater. And second, Russia has turned to the region to diversify its economic relations with a focus on arms sales, civilian nuclear exports and wheat supplies. And in building influence, Russia has largely followed what I call a low cost high disruption approach, also using hybrid tactics such as private military companies and disinformation. Now, these Russian interests in the region will not fundamentally change with the invasion of Ukraine. Today, Russia's regional diplomacy remains highly active, aimed at offsetting the impact of Western sanctions and demonstrating that Moscow is not isolated internationally. 14:09 Hanna Notte: Starting with arms control and Non-Proliferation, though Moscow seemed intent on spoiling negotiations to restore the JCPOA in early March. It subsequently dropped demands for written guarantees that its cooperation with Iran would not be hindered by sanctions imposed over Ukraine. But still, I think the geopolitical situation might make Moscow less willing to help finalize a nuclear deal. As in the past, Russia is also unlikely to support any US efforts to curb Iran's use of missiles and proxies in the region, because essentially, Iran's regional strategy pins down us resources while elevating Russia as a regional mediator, which serves Russian interests well. 15:17 Hanna Notte: Just a few words on Syria. Security Council resolution 2585 on the provision of humanitarian aid to northwest Syria is up for renewal in July. Now, Rationally speaking, the Kremlin should cooperate to avoid a worsening of serious food crisis, especially if an end game in Ukraine remains out of reach. But considering the current level of tensions between Russia and the West, I think the United States should be prepared for a Russian Security Council veto regardless, alongside continued Russian stalling on the Syrian constitutional committee. Moscow has no serious interest in seeing the committee advance. It will instead try to foster a Gulf Arab counterweight to Iran in Syria through normalization, especially for the contingency that Russia may need to scale back its own presence in Syria due to Ukraine. 16:14 Hanna Notte: First, unfortunately I think there's a widespread perception that the Ukraine war is not their war, that it's a Great Power NATO-Russia war, partially fueled by NATO and US actions visa vis Russia. 16:27 Hanna Notte: Second, there are accusations of Western double standards. The military support to Kyiv, the reception of Ukrainian refugees, these are rightly or wrongly viewed as proof that the West cares significantly more about conflict in Europe's neighborhood than those in the Middle East. 16:42 Hanna Notte: Third, regional elites worry about US conventional security guarantees. They fear that the threats posed by Russia and China will accelerate a decline in US power in the Middle East. And they also fear that the US will have limited bandwidth to confront Iran's missile and proxy activities. And with those fears, they feel they cannot afford to put all their eggs into the US basket. 17:07 Hanna Notte: And then finally, each regional state has very distinct business and security interests with Russia. As a result, and I'll end here, I think us opportunities to get regional states to turn against Russia are circumscribed. loosening these ties that states have been building with Russia will require a heavy lift. 18:57 Frederic Wehrey: This engagement is largely opportunistic and ad hoc. It seizes on instability and power vacuums and exploits the insecurities of US partners in the region about the reliability of US support, and their displeasure with the conditionality that the US sometimes attaches to its arms sales. Russian arms deliveries, in contrast, are faster and free from restrictions related to human rights. But Russia cannot provide the security guarantees that many Arab states have depended on from the United States. 19:29 Frederic Wehrey: Now, in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia is trying to reap dividends from its investment in the region, call in favors, and capitalize on local ambivalence and hostility to the United States, both from states and from Arab publics. America's Arab security partners have differed on joining the Western condemnation of Russian aggression, and some of refuse to join efforts to isolate Russia economically. 20:31 Frederic Wehrey: Russia's disastrous war in Ukraine is tarnishing its reputation as an arms supplier in the Middle East. Russian weapons have been shown to be flawed in combat and often fatally. So, Battlefield expenditures and attrition have whittled away Russia's inventory, especially precision munitions, and sanctions have eroded its defense industrial base, especially electronic components. As a result, Russia won't be able to fulfill its existing commitments, and potential buyers will be increasingly dissuaded from turning to Russia. This shortfall could be modestly exploited by China, which possesses large quantities of Russian made arms and spare parts, which you could use to keep existing inventories in the region up and running. It could also intensify its efforts to sell its own advanced weaponry like drones. 23:50 Caitlin Welsh: The war has reduced supplies and increased prices of foods exported from Ukraine and Russia, namely wheat, maize and sunflower oil, driven up demand for substitute products and reduced fertilizer exports from the Black Sea. Today's high cost of energy puts further pressure on food and fertilizer prices. Most vulnerable to the impact of these price spikes are countries for whom wheat is a major source of calories that rely on imports to meet their food security needs, and that source a significant proportion of their imports from Ukraine and Russia. 24:38 Caitlin Welsh: Egypt is the world's largest importer of wheat, sourcing over 70% of its wheat from the Black Sea. 25:42 Caitlin Welsh: The Russian Ukraine war is limiting access to wheat for Lebanon, already in one of the worst economic crises in the world. Lebanon has not recorded economic growth since 2017 and food price inflation inflation reached 400% in December 2021. Lebanon procures approximately 75% of its wheat from Russia and Ukraine. 28:48 Grant Rumley: Russia is one of the few countries in the world to maintain a relatively positive diplomatic standing with nearly every country in the Middle East. It does so through a combination of an active military presence, high level diplomatic engagement, and a concerted effort to position itself as a viable source of arms, should countries seek non-US material. 29:08 Grant Rumley: Russia's military presence in the region is well documented by Russian MOD statements. Russia has deployed over 60,000 troops to Syria since intervening in 2015. From its two bases in Syria, Hmeimim and Tartous, Russia is able to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, influence the course of the Syrian civil war, and intervene in countries like Libya. 29:47 Grant Rumley: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, however, threatens Russia standing in the region. Already reports indicate Russia has begun withdrawing some troops and mercenaries from the region to support its invasion of Ukraine. While we can expect these reports to continue if the war continues to go poorly for Russia, I'm skeptical of a full Russian withdrawal, and instead expect Russia to continue to consolidate its forces until it's left with a skeleton presence at Hmeimim and Tartous, its most strategic assets in the region. 30:26 Grant Rumley: On arms sales, the Russian defense industry, which has struggled to produce key platforms following sanctions initially placed after its 2014 invasion of Ukraine, will likely have to prioritize replenishing the Russian military over exporting. Further, customers of Russian arms may struggle with the resources to maintain and sustain the material in their inventory. Still, so long as Russia is able to make platforms, there will likely always be potential customers of Russian arms. 41:25 Grant Rumley: I definitely think customers of Russian arms are going to have several hurdles going forward, not only with simply maintaining and sustaining what they've already purchased, but in some of the basic logistics, even the payment process. Russian bank complained last month that it wasn't able to process close to a billion dollars in payments from India and Egypt over arms sales. I think countries that purchase Russian arms will also now have to consider the potential that they may incur secondary sanctions, in addition to running afoul of CAATSA . I think from from our standpoint, there are many ways that we can amend our security cooperation approach. The Middle East, I think is a key theater for the future of great power competition, not only have we been competing with Russia in terms of arms sales there, but China increasingly has sold armed drones to the region. They've sold it to traditional partners, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. And what they're doing is is oftentimes what we're not willing to do, our partners in the region seek co-production, they seek technology sharing. China and Russia are willing to work together to build these advanced platforms, Russia and the UAE inked an agreement several years ago to produce a fifth generation fighter. Nothing's come of that yet. China and Saudi Arabia, however, signed an agreement a couple of months ago to jointly produce armed drones in Saudi Arabia. And so I think the US may want to think creatively in terms of both what we sell, how we sell it, and what we're doing to make this more of a relationship and something beyond a strict transaction. 43:39 Grant Rumley: Their presence in Syria has evolved from a modest airstrip in 2015, to a base at Hmeimim that by open source reporting can serve as a logistics hub, a medical hub, it has the runways to host Russia's most advanced bombers. There was reports before Ukraine that Russia was deploying two 22 bombers there and hypersonic missiles. Their facility at Tartous, likewise. Their ability to stage naval assets there has expanded to they can now stage up to 11 ships there. So it has grown from from a rather modest beginning to something much more challenging from a US standpoint. In terms of what we can we can do, I think we can continue to support Ukraine and the defense of Ukraine, and the longer that Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, the harder it will be for Russia's military to extend and maintain its presence in the Middle East. 1:01:45 Grant Rumley: I think the US has several partners in the middle of major Russian arms purchases that we can, like Turkey and the S 400, that has requested the F 16, or Egypt and Sukhoi Su-35, that has requested the F 15. I'm not saying we have to make a deal right now for that, but I think it's clear that these countries are going to have gaps in their capabilities where they had planned on having Russian platforms to complement, and we can work with our partners and work with our own defense industry and see if there's ways in which we can provide off ramps for them to gradually disinvest these Russian platforms. 1:03:00 Frederic Wehrey: When countries in the in the region buy US arms, they believe they're buying much more than the capability, the hardware, that they're purchasing an insurance policy. I think especially for states in the Gulf, there's a fundamental sense of insecurity. These are states that face Iran, but they're also autocrats. They're insecure because of their political systems. They face dissent from within. We saw that with Egypt. So they're purchasing a whole stream of US assurances -- they believe they are. 1:06:00 Grant Rumley: The issue of of co-production is one means to address a common complaint, which is buying from America takes too long. That its too complicated, that if we get in line to buy something from the US, we're going to have to wait years to get it. A good example is the F 16. There are over 20 countries in the world that fly the F 16. We currently -- Lockheed Martin builds it out of one facility. That facility, if you get in line today, you're probably not getting the F 16 for five years from when you sign on the dotted line for it. In the 70s and 80s, we co-produced the F 16 with three other European countries and we were able to get them off the line faster. The initial order at those facilities was for 1000 F 16s. The initial order for the F 16 plant in South Carolina was for 90 F 16s for Taiwan and Morocco. And so from an industry standpoint, it's a question of scale. And so they're not able to ramp up the production because while the demand may get closer to 1000 over time, it's at 128. Last I checked, it's not there yet. And so I think we can use foreign military financing, longer security cooperation planning, working with our partners on multi-year acquisition timetables to then also communicate and send a signal to the defense industry that these are orders for upgrades, for new kits that are going to come down the road. You can start to plan around that and potentially address some of these production lags. 1:17:52 Grant Rumley: China has a lot of legacy Russian platforms, and will likely be a leading candidate to transfer some of these platforms to countries that had purchased Russian arms in the past and may be seeking maintenance and sustainment for them. I think China's already active in the Middle East, it's already flooding the market with armed drones. It's already looking to market other platforms as well. It's sold air defense systems to Serbia. It's looking to advance its arm sales. And so if if we aren't going to be the supplier, China is going to step in. 1:18:57 Caitlin Welsh: USDA has projected that 35% of the current wheat crop from Ukraine will not be harvested this year. So their exports are curtailed, at the same time Russia's exports are continuing. Russia has been exempted. Russia's agricultural exports and fertilizer has been exempted from sanctions for the United States, EU and other countries. So Russia continues to export. In fact, USDA is estimating that Russia's exports are increasing at this time. And I'm also seeing open source reporting of Russia stealing grain from Ukraine, relabeling it, and exporting it at a premium to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. May 12, 2022 NBC News Clips Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): My oath of office is to the US Constitution, not to any foreign nation. And no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America. We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the US economy. This bill under consideration would spend $40 billion. This is the second spending bill for Ukraine in two months. And this bill is three times larger than the first. Our military aid to Ukraine is nothing new, though. Since 2014, the United States has provided more than $6 billion dollars in security assistance to Ukraine, in addition to the $14 billion Congress authorized just a month ago. If this bill passes, the US will have authorized roughly $60 billion in total spending for Ukraine Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): The cost of this package we are voting on today is more than the US spent during the first year of the US conflict in Afghanistan. Congress authorized force, and the President sent troops into the conflict. The same cannot be said of Ukraine. This proposal towers over domestic priorities as well. The massive package of $60 billion to Ukraine dwarfs the $6 million spent on cancer research annually. $60 billion is more than the amount that government collects in gas taxes each year to build roads and bridges. The $60 billion to Ukraine could fund substantial portions or entire large Cabinet departments. The $60 billion nearly equals the entire State Department budget. The 60 billion exceeds the budget for the Department of Homeland Security and for the Department of Energy. And Congress just wants to keep on spending and spending. May 12, 2022 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Witnesses: Jessica Lewis, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Erin McKee, Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development Karen Donfried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State Beth Van Schaack, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State Clips Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Are we making it very clear to Russia that we do not want to pose an existential threat to them, that our only goal is to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine? Karen Donfried: We are making it very clear to Russia that this is not a conflict between Russia and the United States. We are not going to engage directly in this war. President Biden has been explicit in saying we are not sending US troops to fight in this war. So I do believe we have made that clear. Our goal here is to end a war not to enlarge it. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): As you all are waking up every morning, I know with the thought in mind that America's role here is to help Ukraine win and I want to talk a little about how we define victory. When Secretary Austin said after meeting with President Zelenskyy, that we can win this war against Russia -- this happened a few weeks ago -- I thought that was positive. On Monday, the foreign minister of Ukraine, who all of us have had a chance to visit with said, of course, the victory for us in this war will be a liberation of the rest of the territory. So Assistant Secretary Donfried, first, just a yes or no. Do you believe Ukraine can win this war? Karen Donfried: Yes. Sen. Rob Portman: And how would you define victory? Would you define victory as requiring the return of all Ukraine sovereign territory, including that that the Russians seized in 2014? Karen Donfried: Well, Senator Portman, thank you for that question. And thank you for your engagement on these issues. Your question very much relates to where Chairman Menendez began, which is, are we in a position of believing that it is Ukraine that should be defining what winning means? And I agreed with Chairman Menendez's statement on that, and that is where the administration is. We believe Ukraine should define what victory means. And our policy is trying to ensure Ukraine success, both by — Sen. Rob Portman: So the administration's official position on victory is getting Crimea back and getting the Donetsk and Luhansk region back as well. Karen Donfried: Again, I believe that is for the Ukrainians to define. Karen Donfried: Against this threat to regional security, global stability, and our shared values, we are supporting freedom, democracy, and the rules based order that make our own security and prosperity and that of the world possible. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I believe we must also think about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine, the tools and ongoing governance and economic reforms, specifically in the judicial space, that will facilitate rebuilding critical Ukrainian sectors and attracting foreign investment. May 11, 2022 House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense held a budget hearing on the Department of Defense. Witnesses: Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary of Defense Michael J. McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer General Mark A. Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Clips 21:40 General Mark Milley: Alongside our allies and partners, at any given time approximately 400,000 of us are currently standing watch in 155 countries and conducting operations every day to keep Americans safe. 21:56 General Mark Milley: Currently we are supporting our European allies and guarding NATO's eastern flank, in the face of the unnecessary war of aggression by Russia, against the people of Ukraine, and the assault on the democratic institutions and the rules based international order that have prevented great power war for the last 78 years since the end of World War Two. We are now facing two global powers, China and Russia, each with significant military capabilities, both who intend to fundamentally change the current rules based order. May 9, 2022 Clips Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): If Putin still standing after all this then the world is going to be a very dark place China's going to get the wrong signal and we'll have a mess on our hands in Europe for decades to come so let's take out Putin by helping Ukraine April 25, 2022 March 26, 2022 November 4, 2015 House Foreign Affairs Committee Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD252: Women’s Health Protection Act

22 maj 2022 | 79 min

The Women’s Health Protection Act is a bill written by Democrats that would guarantee access to abortion services in the United States. While this bill is unlikely to become law, learning what exactly the Democrats are proposing is instructive, as many of us will be voting with abortion in mind later this year. Now that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn previous decisions that guaranteed access to abortion services for the past 50 years, what do Democrats hope to do in response? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Links to We’re Not Wrong Executive Producer Recommended Episode : A Coup for Capitalism Follow up reading: Tom Phillips, Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger. May 19, 2022. The Guardian. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episode : The Abortion Bill Abortion Background Laura Temme. May 12, 2022. FindLaw. Grace Panetta, Shayanne Gal, and Taylor Tyson. Updated May 9, 2022. Business Insider. Jon O. Shimabukuro. Feb 25, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Katherine Kortsmit et. al. Nov 27, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United Kingdom National Health Service. Start for Life. A. Pawlowski. Nov 9, 2017. Today. Supreme Court of the United States. Jun 29, 1992. Justia. The Draft Decision Adeel Hassan. May 6, 2022. The New York Times. Supreme Court of the United States. Feb 10, 2022. Bills Sponsor: Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) Sponsor: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Bill Outline Gives health care providers the right to provide abortion services and gives patients the right to receive abortion services "without any of the following limitations or requirements": Requirements to perform specific tests or medical procedures prior to an abortion Requirements that direct health providers to provide medically inaccurate information before or during abortion services Limitations on the health care provider's ability to provide drugs to the patient Limitations preventing the health care provider from performing abortion services via telemedicine Limitations placed on abortion providing facilities that are not placed on hospitals and other facilities where similar procedures are performed Requirements that the patient attend medically unnecessary pre-abortion in-person office visits Limitations on abortions "at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability" Limitations on abortions "after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgement of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health." Requirements that patients disclose the reason they want an abortion prior to fetal viability. Allows the courts to consider the following in determining if a requirement illegally impedes access to abortion services: If the requirement interferes with a health care providers ability to provide care and services or poses a risk to the patient's health or safety If the requirement would likely delay or deter some patients from accessing abortion services If the requirement is likely to increase the financial costs of providing or obtaining abortion services If the requirement would likely limit the availability of abortion services in a State or geographic region If the requirement imposes penalties on health care providers that are not imposed on or are more severe than penalties imposed on other health care providers for comparable conduct or failures to act This law would apply to the Federal Government and "each State government" and no State government can implement and enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this law. The law would not govern physical access to clinic entrances, insurance coverage for abortions, contracts, or bans on partial birth abortions. Immediately upon enactment. Allows the Attorney General to sue any State or government official who implements or enforcement limitations or requirements that would be prohibited by this law. Allows individuals, "entities", and health care providers adversely affected by violations of the law to also sue the State that violates the law with illegal limitations and requirements The costs of the trial and attorney's fees would be paid by the State if the State loses the case. The person suing could not be forced to pay for attorney's fees if the claim was judged to be "non-frivolous" even if they lose. Sponsor: Trent Franks (R-AZ) Status: Died in 113th Congress Audio Sources May 10, 2022 September 24, 2021 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD251: BIF: Driving Dangers Sustained

8 maj 2022 | 81 min

The recently signed infrastructure law continues the United States’ over-reliance on the most dangerous way to travel: driving a vehicle. Did Congress make sufficient safety improvements to decrease the dangers posed by driving in the United States? This episode will examine all vehicle-related safety provisions to help you weigh your own transportation options. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : BIF: Appalachian Chemical Storage : BIF: The Growth of US Railroads : BIF: The Infrastructure BILL : Trailblazer vs. ThinThread Why You Should Be Afraid of Cars Apr 12, 2022. Statista. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mar 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation. Jun 2021. Statista. Injury Facts. National Safety Council. Jon Ziomek. Sept 28, 2020. Historynet. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. Problems the Law Does (and Does Not) Address Jake Blumgart. Nov 15, 2021. Governing. Self Driving Cars Neal E. Boudette. May 3, 2022. San Francisco Examiner. Natasha Yee. Apr 1, 2022. Phoenix New Times. Feb 20, 2022. Carsurance. Neal E. Boudette. Jul 5, 2021. The New York Times. Clifford Law Offices PC. May 5, 2021. The National Law Review. Katie Shepherd and Faiz Siddiqui. Apr. 19, 2021. The Washington Post. Riley Beggin. Jan 15, 2021. Government Technology. Faiz Siddiqui. Oct 22, 2020. The Washington Post. Niraj Chokshi. Feb 25, 2020. The New York Times. Michael Laris. Feb 11, 2020. The Washington Post. Alex Davies. May 16, 2019. Wired. Neal E. Boudette and Bill Vlasic. Sept 12, 2017. The New York Times. Rachel Abrams and Annalyn Kurtz. Jul 1, 2016. The New York Times. Alcohol Detection Systems Isaac Serna-Diez. Nov 23, 2021. YourTango. Keyless Entry Carbon Monoxide Deaths Jun 20, 2019. Kelley Uustal Trial Attorneys. Jun 7, 2019. KidsAndCars.org. Kids Left in Cars Morgan Hines. Aug 2, 2019. USA Today. Scottie Andrew and AJ Willingham. July 30, 2019. CNN. John Bacon. Jul 28, 2019. USA Today. Eric Stafford. May 6, 2019. [“Children Can Die When Left in the Back Seat on a Warm Day—and 800 Already Have. Car and Driver. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. Motorcycle Helmets May 2022. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Insurance Information Institute. Adam E. M. Eltorai et. al. March 16, 2016. BMC Public Health. Truck Safety Rechtien. Non-motorist Safety Governors Highway Safety Association. March 2021. Governors Highway Safety Association. John Wenzel. Jan 6, 2020. Saint Paul Sign & Bollard. Richard Peace. Feb 20, 2019. Electric Bike Report. 911 System Upgrades Mark L. Goldstein. January 2018. Government Accountability Office. National 911 Program. December 2016. U.S. Department of Transportation. CD021: Trailblazer vs. ThinThread Followup The Chertoff Group. Atlantic Council. Tim Shorrock. Apr 15 2013. The Nation. The Law Law Outline Authorizes appropriations for Federal-Aid for highways at between $52 billion and $56 billion per year through fiscal year 2026 (over $273 billion total). Authorizes $300 million for for 2022, which increases by $100 million per year (maxing out at $700 million in 2026) Authorizes between $25 million and $30 million per year for "community resilience and evacuation route grants" on top of equal amounts for "at risk coastal infrastructure grants" Authorizes a total of $6.53 billion (from two funds) for the bridge investment program Caps the annual total funding from all laws (with many exceptions) that can be spent on Federal highway programs. Total through 2026: $300.3 billion Adds protected bike lanes to the list of projects allowed to be funded by the highway safety improvement project Adds "vulnerable road users" (non-motorists) to the list of people who must be protected by highway safety improvement projects If 15% or more of a state's annual crash fatalities are made up of non-motorists, that state will be required to spend at least 15% of its highway safety improvement project money on projects designed to improve safety for non-motorists. Each state, by the end of 2023, will have to complete a vulnerable road user safety assessment that includes specific information about each non-motorist fatality and serious injury in the last five years, identifies high-risk locations, and identifies possible projects and strategies for improving safety for non-motorists in those locations. Creates a new program to improve the ability of children to walk and ride their bikes to school by funding projects including sidewalk improvements, speed reduction improvements, crosswalk improvements, bike parking, and traffic diversions away from schools. Up to 30% of the money can be used for public awareness campaigns, media relations, education, and staffing. No additional funding is provided. It will be funded with existing funds for "administrative expenses". Each state will get a minimum of $1 million. Non-profit organizations are eligible, along with local governments, to receive and spend the funding. Non-profits are the only entities eligible to receive money for educational programs about safe routes to school. Allows the Transportation Secretary to allocate funds for dedicated bus lanes Adds "shared micromobility" projects (like bike shares) to the list of projects that can be funded as a highway project Electric bike-share bikes must stop assisting the rider at a maximum of 28 mph to be classified as an "electric bicycle" Requires each state, in return for funding, to carry out 1 or more project to increase accessible for multiple travel modes. The projects can be... The enactment of "complete streets standards" (which ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the transportation system) Connections of bikeways, pedestrian walkways, and public transportation to community centers and neighborhoods Increasing public transportation ridership Improving safety of bike riders and pedestrians Intercity passenger rail There's a way for State's to get this requirement waived if they already have Complete Streets standards in place Creates a grant program, funded at a minimum of $10 million per grant, for projects aimed at reducing highway congestion. Eligible projects include congestion management systems, fees for entering cities, deployment of toll lanes, parking fees, and congestion pricing, operating commuter buses and vans, and carpool encouragement programs. Buses, transit, and paratransit vehicles "shall" be allowed to use toll lanes "at a discount rate or without charge" By the end of 2022, the Secretary of Transportation needs to create a competitive grant pilot program to fund "bollard installation projects", which are projects that raise concrete or metal posts on a sidewalk next to a road that are designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle. The grants will pay for 100% of the project costs Appropriates only $5 million per year through 2026 By early 2023, the Transportation Department has to conduct a study on the existing and future effects of self-driving cars on infrastructure, mobility, the environment, and safety. Creates a grant program authorized for $1 billion total that will fund walking and biking infrastructure projects that each cost $15 million or more and connect communities to each other, including communities in different states, and to connect to public transportation. The Federal government will pay for 80% of the project costs, except in communities with a poverty rate over 40% (the Federal government will pay 100% of the project costs in impoverished communities). A Federal regulation will be created by November 2023 which will require new commercial vehicles to be equipped with automatic braking systems and there will be performance standards for those braking systems. Creates a three year pilot program, capped at 3,000 participants at a time, for people under 21 to be trained by people over the age of 26 to become commercial truck drivers. Drivers under the age of 21 are not allowed to transport any passengers or hazardous cargo A Federal regulation will be created by November 2023 requiring that limousines have a seat belts at every seating position, including side facing seats. Prohibit the Federal Government from withholding highway safety money to the states that refuse to require helmets for motorcycle drivers or passengers who are over the age of 18. Creates a grant program (by November 2023) that will fund states that want to create a process for notifying vehicle owners about any open recalls on their cars when they register their cars with the DMV. The state receiving the money is only required to provide the notifications for two years and participation in general is voluntary. Creates financial incentives for states to create laws that prohibit drivers from holding "a personal wireless communications device" while driving, has fines for breaking that law, and has no exemptions for texting when stopped in traffic. There are exceptions for using a cell phone for navigation in a "hands-free manner" Creates financial incentives for states to create laws that require curriculum in driver's education courses to include information about law enforcement procedures during traffic stops and the rights and responsibilities of the drivers when being stopped. The states would also have to have training programs for the officers for implementing the procedures that would be explained to drivers. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to implement all of the national-level recommendations outlined in a by the end of November 2022. Authorizes a little over $1 billion total for vehicle safety programs from 2022 through 2026 By November 2023, the Transportation Department will have to issue a regulation requiring fossil fuel powered vehicles with keyless ignitions to have an automatic shutoff system to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning. The amount of time that must trigger the shut off will be determined by the regulators. If the regulation is issued on time, this would go into effect most likely on September 1, 2024. The Secretary of Transportation must issue a regulation establishing minimum standards for crash avoidance technology that must be included in all vehicles sold in the United States starting on a date that will be chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. The technology must alert the driver of an imminent crash and apply the breaks automatically if the driver doesn't do so. The technology must include a land departure system that warns the driver that they are not in their lane and correct the course of travel if the driver doesn't do so. Repeals that required the Transportation Department to publish criteria that established timelines and performance requirements for anyone who got a grant to implement the Next Generation 9-1-1 project. By November 2024, the Secretary of Transportation will have to finish a regulation that requires passenger motor vehicles to be standard equipped with "advanced and impaired driving prevention technology" The technology must be able to monitor the performance of a driver and/or their blood alcohol level and be able to prevent or limit the car's operation if impairment is detected or if the blood alcohol is above the legal limit. This will apply to new cars sold after November 2030 at the latest. By November 2023, the Secretary of Transportation must finish a regulation requiring all new passenger vehicles to have a system alerting the driver visually and audibly to check the back seat when the car is turned off. Says it will be activated "when the vehicle motor is deactivated by the operator" Hearings February 2, 2022 Overview: The purpose of this hearing is for Members of the Subcommittee to explore the impact of automated vehicle deployment, including automated trucks and buses, on mobility, infrastructure, safety, workforce, and other economic and societal implications or benefits. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD250: Congress Saves the Postal Service

24 april 2022 | 90 min

Congress did a good thing! In this encouraging episode, learn about a new law that saved the Postal Service from financial doom without spending one extra penny in taxpayer money. Then, listen to the highlights from a recent hearing about the electrification of the Postal Service’s vehicle fleet. Louis DeJoy may not have sabotaged the 2020 election, but is he sabotaging the effort to transition the Postal Service away from fossil fuels? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : Postal Service Sabotage Lobbying Open Secrets. Bill Profile: H.R. 3076. Open Secrets. Bill Profile: H.R. 3076. Open Secrets. Darrell Issa: Federal Congressional Candidacy Data Jon Stewart Podcast March 24, 2022. The Problem with Jon Stewart. The Law : 342-92 (All no votes GOP) : 79-19 (All no votes GOP) Became law on December 20, 2006 Audio Sources April 5, 2022 The Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing to examine the benefits, opportunities, and challenges of electrifying the Postal Service fleet through the acquisition of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle (NGDV). Witnesses: Tammy L. Whitcomb, Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General Victoria K. Stephen, Executive Director, Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, USPS Kenny Stein, Director, Policy, Institute for Energy Research Jill Naamane, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, General Services Administration Joe Britton, Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation Association Clips 10:00 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): While Republicans are not against the Postal Service acquiring electric vehicles, we're against mandates that ignore the business needs and the financial situation of the Postal Service. Republicans believe the postal service must be self funded. This means the Postal Service should pay for its own capital needs, like purchasing new vehicles. Meanwhile, Americans can't afford to fill up their gas tanks, let alone buy an electric vehicle. But that isn't stopping Democrats from demanding your mailman has one. 26:30 Tammy L. Whitcomb: Last February, the Postal Service awarded a contract to produce and deploy up to 165,000 new delivery vehicles over the next 10 years. While the contract allows for both electric and gasoline powered vehicles, the Postal Service's current plan is for most of the new vehicles to be gasoline powered. We have two recent reports related to this purchasing decision. One of our reports was a research paper that identified the opportunities and challenges for the Postal Service in adopting these electric vehicles. We found electric vehicles are well suited for most postal routes, and there are clear benefits to their adoption. For example, a large fleet of electric vehicles would help the Postal Service decrease its greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the growth of the electric vehicle market in the United States. Additionally, electric vehicles are more mechanically reliable than gas powered vehicles and require less scheduled maintenance. They would also result in the Postal Service incurring lower and more reliable and stable energy costs. However, there are challenges associated with adopting an electric vehicle fleet. The upfront costs are significantly higher than gasoline powered vehicles. The Postal Service would need to pay a higher per vehicle price and incur the cost of installing the charging infrastructure. The Postal Service has over 17,000 delivery units that may host electric vehicles and the cost and issues associated with installing charging infrastructure will vary by each depending on the parking layout, power availability and required upgrades. Good planning along with early and consistent communication with local governments and utility companies could help overcome these challenges. We found the Postal Service could save money in the long term by deploying electric vehicles on certain routes. For example on longer routes in in areas of the country where gas prices are traditionally higher. The Postal Service might also be able to lower the costs associated with electric vehicles by exploring different mixes of the type and number of chargers. Because many delivery routes are short, it is unlikely that every vehicle would need to plug into a charger every night. There are two other factors that could significantly change the cost benefit analysis of purchasing electric vehicles: federal funding and local incentives. The Postal Service has stated it could achieve full electrification of its delivery fleet if Congress provided $6.9 billion. Incentive programs by local utility companies might also help offset costs. 33:57 Victoria Stephen: Any mix of replacement vehicles will deliver significant reductions in emissions and improvements in fuel economy over our existing long-life vehicles. I would note, however, that we have 12,500 routes over 70 miles in length that are not candidates for electrification today, and another 5000 that require all wheel drive vehicles due to extreme climate conditions. Electrification also comes with the challenge of installing infrastructure at a multitude of postal facilities. 42:36 Jill Naamane: Last month, the Postal Service ordered 50,000 new delivery vehicles including about 10,000 that will be electric. To inform its decision, USPS conducted a total cost of ownership analysis of a range of types of vehicles. information in this analysis included the maintenance and fuel costs of each vehicle. It also developed a model that recommends the lowest cost vehicle for each delivery route, and a mix of vehicles to purchase each year. The model is based on a set of assumptions including information from the total cost of ownership analysis and details on individual delivery routes. 43:28 Jill Naamane: Our preliminary analysis of the model raises questions about the way in which certain assumptions estimate the costs and benefits of the gas and electric vehicles. I'll highlight a few examples. First, the model we reviewed used a 2020 gas price that is almost $2 per gallon less than the current national average. 43:57 Jill Naamane: Second, the model appears to assume maintenance would be more expensive for electric vehicles than gas. This is inconsistent with research we have identified, our interviews with private delivery companies, and Postal Service documents that show electric vehicles are expected to be less expensive to maintain. 44:16 Jill Naamane: Third, the total cost of ownership analysis does not include a reduction in emissions as a benefit of electric vehicles. A separate USPS Environmental Impact Statement found that with no tailpipe emissions, electric vehicles would have this benefit. 44:40 Jill Naamane: I'll turn now to factors that have so far affected the widespread acquisition of electric vehicles in federal fleets. We've previously reported that these factors include the higher upfront costs of electric vehicles and uncertainties around the cost and installation of charging infrastructure. Our ongoing work indicates that these factors remain relevant. For example, USPS officials said the higher upfront cost was a key factor in their decision making. They estimate that the new electric and gas delivery vehicles will not cost the same until 2031. In addition, USPS estimates a range in the cost of installing chargers depending on the site and it is uncertain whether older facilities have sufficient power capacity to support the charging infrastructure. 51:50 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): On March 24, the Postal Service placed its first purchase order of 50,000 vehicles with Oshkosh. And although the Postal Service initially insisted it could buy only 5000 electric vehicles in this first order, it doubled that amount to 10,000 after this committee and others began to ask questions. So I'd first like to ask Miss Steven, can you briefly explain what changed the Postal Service's analysis to allow for the increase of EVs in this purchase order? Victoria Stephen: Yes, thank you for the question. The first thing that that it's important to note is that the Postal Service has committed to continuing to reassess changes in the market. And so the point that you and some of the other speakers have made today about changing fuel prices…$2.19 was the price at the time that we prepared the analysis, we have continued to do ongoing analysis on changing fuel prices and sensitivity analysis to determine if that change is our mix. It certainly does. The gas prices are higher today than they were when we prepared the initial analysis. So that's one factor. The other key factor is that through the efforts of you and your colleagues, postal reform is making a big difference for the Postal Service. It allows us the flexibility to consider our capital position differently than prior to the passage of postal reform. So between those two key variables, we were able to go back and assess our ability to increase the proportion of electric vehicles within our financial resources and within our means, and we're happy to do that. 1:44:00 Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA): What would the Postal Service do right now if a postal service vehicle runs out of fuel on its route? Victoria Stephen: A conventional vehicle today? Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA): Yes, yes, ma'am. Victoria Stephen: Yeah, we will call our local team and they would— Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA): And you’d bring in gas pretty quick, wouldn’t you? Victoria Stephen: That’s right. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA): What do you what are you going to do it for the electric postal service vehicle runs out of juice? Victoria Stephen: It’s more challenging— Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA): You’re gonna have to tow it. So listen, I say to my colleagues across the aisle, maybe the time has come for this discussion, but let's have it honestly. It’s not going to work. We're spending billions of dollars of the people's treasury to accomplish some dream. Not to mention what my colleague has brought up: the raw materials for these batteries being mined by child slave labor overseas. That raw product bought by China is assembled into the finished product by slave labor in China. Do we support that? For God's sakes, let's take a step back. As a committee, we owe it to the American people that we serve to take a hard look at this thing. 2:01:06 Rep. Glen Grothman (R-WI): Some of my colleagues proposed requiring 75% of the vehicles to be electric. Do you think that's a reasonable possibility? Do you think that's really something that could be handled right now? Victoria Stephen: I think it's a bit beyond what our estimates say is possible. When we were asked by some of the congressional committee members and staff throughout the last year to assess how far we could go with our electrification, the response we provided was 70% of our delivery fleet acquisitions over the course of the decade could be electrified if resources were made available. 3:16:05 Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA): And then there's the problem with the Postal Service assumptions about EV range, a 70 mile vehicle range. In your extensive work in this field, including the vehicles that companies like GM, Ford and rivian? are providing to private fleets, did USPS use the correct assumption about battery range? Joe Britton: No, it is far inconsistent with what we're seeing in the marketplace and I'll give you a couple examples. The Ford eTransit van? gets nearly two miles per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The workhorse C Series? gets one and a half miles per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The Arrival van that is being contracted with UPS gets 1.7 miles per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The USPS assumption is that this vehicle gets seven tenths of a mile per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The only other vehicle that we have seen that has that inefficient of an electric drive train would be a Class A tractor trailer or semi truck fully weighted down. It is impossible [unintelligible] -- Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA): And if the model used the correct range assumptions, wouldn't that significantly affect the total cost of ownership analysis, including the number of charging stations needed to support these vehicles? Joe Britton: That's correct. You would not need nearly as many charging stations as the Postal Service is asserting. 3:20:12 Rep. James Comer (R-KY): It's a worthy cause to try to change to try to transfer from fossil fuels to electric vehicles. But the policies in the Biden administration are making that even more difficult than the economics of it. For example, the Biden administration war on coal is making it more difficult to mine coal and to burn coal. I know that from being from a coal burning state and a coal producing state. You have to have coal to make electricity. You also have to have natural gas to make electricity. We have a lot of problems with our energy policy in America from the Biden administration. And he's gonna make electrifying vehicles even more difficult. February 8, 2022 Clips 20:40 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Because the Postal Service is required to deliver to every American even on unprofitable routes. The postal service may be charging lower than market rates in its service contracts with private companies. This may not only shortchange the Postal Service making further taxpayer bailouts likely, but it could also distort competition in the package delivery market. 22:45 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Senator Scott's amendment would alleviate some of the financial burdens that this bill would impose on taxpayers and the Medicare program by forcing the Postal Service to reimburse Medicare for all of the additional costs that would be created by requiring future postal retirees to enroll in Medicare. 2:38:33 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): I would also like to note what this bill does not do because there has been some misinformation out there. One, it does not appropriate new funds to the post office, period. Two, it does not change the accounting or costing structure for packages and letters so it does not disadvantage private-sector carriers. That is very important to me. This is the status quo that we are putting in place here. It does not change the accounting or costing structure for packages and letters. Third, it does not allow the Postal Service to enter into new commercial services like postal banking. That is also very important to me. And contrary to the claims of this bill’s opponents, this bill does not impact the solvency of the Medicare hospital trust fund. That is the trust fund we all talk about. It is going belly-up in 2026. It does not affect it, period. CBO has actually written us something saying that, but it just makes sense. People are already in Part A. And this bill does not increase the Medicare Part B and Part D premiums based on the CBO analysis. Why? Partly because it is such a small number of people. Only 25 percent of postal employees were not already in Part B and Part D, so additional ones make very little difference. But part of it is they are paying their premiums. February 8, 2022 Clips 37:10 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): The fact is they haven't made a profit since 2006 as they are mandated. The truth is, the post office isn't lacking liquidity, it is bankrupt and nothing in this bill will make the post office truly solvent. It simply wipes out and wipes away debts and shifts the burden onto taxpayers. The bill forgives $46 billion in debts owed by the Postal Service, forcing the taxpayers to pay it. May 13, 2021 Clip 44:45 Rep. Speier (D-CA): Believe it or not, prohibition has been over for 90 years, but somehow, we never fixed it so that the US Postal Service could be in a position to mail and process liquor and wine. So for 90 years, they have had their hands tied, while others were able to do that task. We can't have the Postal Service break even or even become profitable if we keep tying its hands. So we also have an interest in protecting small businesses, micro breweries, small retail establishments, small wineries. They cannot ship their product because they either have to have the sanctions of the wholesalers or they don't ship. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee August 21, 2020 Clips 12:30 Louis DeJoy: Our business model established by the Congress requires us to pay our bills through our own efforts. I view it as my personal obligation to put the organization in a position to fulfill that mandate. With action from the Congress and our regulator, and significant effort by the Postal Service, we can achieve this goal. This year, the Postal Service will likely be reported loss of more than $9 billion. Without change, our losses will only increase in the years to come. It is vital that Congress enact reform legislation that addresses our unaffordable retirement payments. Most importantly, Congress must allow the postal service to integrate our retiree health benefits program with Medicare. August 6, 2009 Speakers: John Potter, Former Postmaster General David Williams, Former Inspector General, USPS Clips 46:10 David Williams: The Postal accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the postal service to make 10 annual payments of $5 billion each in addition to the $20 billion already set aside for pre funding its retiree health benefits, the size of the $5 billion payments has little foundation and the current payment method is damaging to the financial viability of the Postal Service even in profitable times. The payment amounts were not actuarially based instead, the required payments were built to ensure that the Postal Act did not affect the federal budget deficit. This seems inexplicable since the Postal Service is not part of the federal budget, does not receive an appropriation for operations and makes its money from the sale of postal services. The payment amounts are fixed through 2016 and do not reflect the funds earnings. Estimates of the Postal Service liability as a result of changing economic circumstances, declining staff size or developments in health Care and pharmaceutical industries. The payments do not take into account the Postal Service’s ability to pay and are too challenging even in normal times. 1:10:10 John Potter: And when I look around the world and see what other posts are, if you’re in Australia and you want to update your driver’s license, renew it, you go to the post office. If you’re in Italy and you go into a bank, more than likely going to the post office, if you’re in Japan and you want to buy insurance, more than likely you’re going to the post office. And if you’re in France and you have a cell phone issue, more than likely, again, you’re going to the post office. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode by

CD249: A Few Good Laws

20 mars 2022 | 109 min

We have some new laws! In this episode, a brief overview of the government funding law that (finally) funds the government for 2022 and provides money and weapons to Ukraine, a new law that protects drinking water, a new law that slightly reduces the corruption of Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board, and a new law that guarantees you rights that corporate contracts have been taking away. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Executive Producer Recommended Congressional Dish Episode : Weapons for the World Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : Understanding the Enemy : Keeping Ukraine : Target Belarus : Electrifying Puerto Rico : Controlling Puerto Rico : Crisis in Puerto Rico Recommended Congressional Dish YouTube Videos Earmarks Jamie Dupree. Mar 10, 2022. Regular Order by Jamie Dupree. Continuing Resolution Mary Ellen McIntire. Mar 9, 2022. Roll Call. Ballotpedia. Updated February 11, 2021. Red Hill Water Contamination Sophia McCullough. Mar 7, 2022. Hawai’i Public Radio. Scott Kim. Mar 4, 2022. Hawai’i Public Radio. Sophia McCullough. Mar 1, 2022. Hawai’i Public Radio. Associated Press, HPR News Staff. Nov 22, 2021. Hawai’i Public Radio. Scott Kim and Catherine Cruz. Oct 27, 2021. Hawai’i Public Radio. Lead Pipes Karen Pinchin. Sep 10, 2019. Frontline. Brittany Greeson. Natural Resources Defense Council. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Feb 18, 2019. Case: 17-03283-LTS. Forced Arbitration Matt Stoller. Mar 7, 2022. BIG. Laws Law Outline Title VII: General Provisions $300 million from the "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" account must be used for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative The money can be used for "salaries and stipends" of Ukraine's military in addition to equipment and support Prohibitions against Russia will not be lifted until "the armed forces of the Russian Federation have withdrawn from Crimea, other than armed forces present on military bases" agreed upon by the Russian and Ukrainian governments. "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion. Title VII: General Provisions "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the implementation of any action or policy that recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea or other territory in Ukraine." This will end when the Secretary of State certifies that "the Government of Ukraine has reestablished sovereignty over Crimea and other territory in Ukraine under the control of Russian-backed separatists." Title I: Department of Agriculture $100 million for Food for Peace grants $195.5 million for US military personnel $213 million for Air Force procurement $5.5 billion for operations and maintenance $3.5 billion of this is for replacing weapons given to Ukraine and for "defense services" and "military eduction and training" provided to the Government of Ukraine. Authorizes $4 billion for direct loans to Ukraine and NATO countries, along with permission to reduce or cancel their obligations to pay us back. Amount provided this way "shall not be considered assistance for the purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to a country" $2.65 billion to countries housing Ukrainians refugees for emergency food and shelter $1.4 billion for refugees $1.12 billion for Ukraine and "other countries" - Poland and Hungary in particular - that are enacting IMF economic reforms and expanding the private sector $650 million for the "foreign military financing program" for Ukraine "and countries impacted by the situation" $647 million for the "Economic Support Fund" which can be transferred to fund activities "related to public engagement, messaging, and countering disinformation." Expands the emergency powers of the President in 2022 to allow him to provide $3 billion in military equipment, services and money to foreign countries and international organizations, instead of the usual limit of $100 million per year Increases the amount of weapons that are allowed to be exported from $2.05 billion to $3.1 billion $120 million for "Transition Initiatives" Law Outline DIVISION A - FURTHERING ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022 Extends government funding at 2021 levels until March 11, 2022. Allows the Department of Defense to spend their Operations and Maintenance and emergency funds to respond to the Red Hill Bulk Storage Facility spill but caps the spending at $53 million. Adds $250 million to their budget for 2022 to address drinking water contamination caused by the spill. Adds $100 to their budget so they can comply with the Hawaii state order to remove the fuel from the Red Hill facility. Senate: Unanimous Consent Law Outline Sec 2: Disclosure by Professional Persons Seeking Approval of Compensation Under Section 316 or 317 of PROMESA Requires attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, and other professional persons to file a disclosure listing their conflicts of interest with debtors, creditors - or their attorneys and accountants - and the oversight board members, directors, and employees. Failure to file the disclosure, or an incomplete disclosure, will prevent that person from being paid. Being "not a disinterested person" or having an "adverse interest" will also disqualify that person from compensation. This will only apply to cases filed AFTER enactment of this law (January 20, 2022) Law Outline Sec. 2: Predispute Arbitration of Disputes Involving Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. Invalidates predispute arbitration clauses in contracts if the person alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault or a representative of a class action lawsuit elects to go to court instead of use arbitration. This will apply whether the case is to be filed in Federal, Tribal, or State court. The decision over where the case will be heard will be made by a court, not by an arbitrator regardless of what is in the contract. Sec 3: Applicability Will only apply to any dispute or claim that "arises or accrues" on or after the date of enactment. Hearings and Debate February 23, 2022 Clips 1:19:09 Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon: Representative Velazquez and myself have proposed this bipartisan initiative in the last two congresses having achieved passage in the house during the last session Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): In response to dire fiscal issues facing Puerto Rico at the time, Congress passed the Puerto Rico oversight management and economic stability Act, or Preska in 2016. That legislation established the financial oversight and management board with control over Puerto Rico's budget laws, financial plans and regulations and the authority to retain professionals to assist the board in executing its responsibilities. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): The Puerto Rico recovery accuracy in disclosures act of 2021 or product eliminates a double standard currently facing Puerto Rico. On the US Code and federal bankruptcy procedure. Any conflicts of interest or even the perception of such conflict between those working on the bankruptcy and the debtor there are required to be disclosed. However, a loophole in the current law prevents this requirement from being extended to the people of Puerto Rico. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Most significantly the gap in the 2016 law created a potential for undisclosed compensation terms and undiscovered conflicts of interest visa vi parties and interest for professional serving in Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González Colon: Learning that someone was involved in businesses of one of the parties in the case only after they are named and working on the case does not create assurance of their commitment to the best interest of Puerto Rico or even managing the depth. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): This builds disclosure and oversight requirements increase the likelihood that conflicts of interest will be caught and timely addressed before compensation decisions are made. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): While we can have different opinions on how effectively the oversight board is carrying out its mission, one thing should be clear. The island's residents should be entitled to the same rights and protections of any debtor on the mainland. February 7, 2022 Clips 9:21 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): If H.R. 4445 becomes law contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. 10:28 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): Why are some in Congress so intent on taking this legislation forward today? For years, Democrats have tried to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims and plaintiffs. If Democrats had their way, everyone from consumers to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims, to individuals using financial service products and others would not be able to contract in advance to resolve disputes through arbitration. 47:33 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): We know that if parties can’t agree in advance to arbitrate then they are unlikely to agree to arbitrate after there has been a dispute. As a result, the plaintiff may never get to arbitration. House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Readiness January 11, 2022 This hearing conducted oversight into the Navy’s maintenance of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, the Navy’s investigation into and response to the November 2021 release of fuel from Red Hill facility impacting drinking water, its impacts on service members and civilians, clean-up and remediation efforts, and next steps forward. Witnesses: Vice Admiral Yancy Lindsey, Commander, Navy Installations Command Rear Admiral Blake Converse, Deputy Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet Rear Admiral John K. Korka, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Chief of Civil Engineers Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos, Supply Corps, United States Navy, Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command and 49th Chief of Supply Corps Captain Michael McGinnis Pacific Fleet Surgeon, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Clips 9:05 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA): Why does Red Hill exist in the first place? Even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had grown concerned about the vulnerability of above ground fuel storage tanks in 1940. The construction began on the Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility, a one in a kind engineering innovation that secured the fuel from enemy aerial attack. The facility holds 250 million gallons of fuel in 20 steel lined underground tanks encased in concrete. These tanks are connected to three gravity fed pipelines, running two and a half miles to Pearl Harbor fuel appears. However, a statistic less commonly quoted by the DoD is that the facility is also 100 feet above the groundwater aquifer that provides water to the residents of Oahu. Thus, it has always been the responsibility of the military to ensure that these tanks are maintained in a manner that not only protects the wartime fuel supply, but the people have a Oahu water supply 18:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: I want to start by saying that the Navy caused this problem, we own it, and we're gonna fix it. 19:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Beginning on November 28, residents of certain neighborhoods on our Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam here in Hawaii in military housing began recording vapors, discoloration and contamination of the water provided by the Navy. The Red Hill shaft well, which sits near the Navy's Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility was immediately suspected to be the source of this contamination as that was the source of the drinking water for those affected neighborhoods. So it was shut down that evening, November 28. And it just remained isolated since that day. Later, samples from the Red Hill shaft well would confirm the presence of petroleum contamination. 39:40 Captain Michael McGinnis: Medical teams have screened over 5900 patients during this event. The vast majority were conducted within the first two weeks of our response. patient's symptoms were consistent with an acute environmental exposure event. patient's symptoms consistent with the following nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, skin or eye irritation. Once patients were removed from the water source, the symptoms rapidly resolved. 42:12 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Our best information is that this recent spill was due to operator error. 1:31:45 Rep. Kaiali'i Kahele (D-HI): Tanks number three, number four and number 11 have not been inspected for approximately 40 years. So my question to Navy Supply Systems Command is why are these tanks still in operation? And how can you assure this committee and the people of Hawaii that tanks three, four and 11, that have not even been looked at in the last 40 years, are safe to use and meet current API 653 guidelines for bulk fuel storage underground facilities. Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct. There are tanks, as you mentioned, that have been out of periodicity for quite a long time. 1:41:27 Rep. Jackie Speier: Are the commanding officers and our executive officers that are assigned to Red Hill trained in petroleum management? Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: I'll take that question ma'am. The answer is no. House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense January 12, 2022 Witnesses: General David H. Berger, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations of the U.S. Navy General Joseph M. Martin, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Mike McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) General John W. Raymond, Chief of Space Operations of the U.S. Space Force Clips 29:51 Mike McCord: First, as I believe you're all aware a full year CR, we reduce our funding level below what we requested and what we believe we need. On the surface at the department level as a whole, the reduction to our accounts would appear to be about a billion dollars below our request, which would be significant. Even if that was the only impact. The actual reduction in practice will be much greater. Because we would have significant funding that's misaligned, trapped or frozen in the wrong places and unusable because we don't have the tools or flexibilities to realign funds on anything like the scam we would need to fix all the problems that the chiefs are going to describe. 30:27 Mike McCord: I know all of you are very familiar with the fact that virtually all military construction projects in each year's budget including the FY 22 budget are new starts that cannot be executed under a CR. 34:00 Mike McCord: The six longest CRs in the history of the Defense Department have all occurred in this last 12 year period. We have turned a 12 month fiscal year into an eight month fiscal year in terms of our ability to initiate new starts and enter contracts. This should be unacceptable and not the new normal. It's hard to see this full impact because or in the inefficiency from looking from outside because the organization has of course adapted to its circumstances just as organisms do. Nobody plans to enter into contracts in the first quarter of a fiscal year now because the odds that we would actually be able to do so are so low. Therefore we in turn, have no significant contract delays to report to you when we're under a CR. 1:44:02 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI): This is about decreasing domestic spending and increasing defense spending. 1:44:20 **Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN):**This was my effort to quash those who are talking about year long CRs. No one on the Appropriations Committee is, yet you see things in the news. And unfortunately, sir, it's usually from your side of the aisle, and I'll pull it again. And it's a December 1 quote, and I can get you the gentlemen, the person who said it. Republicans should be in favor of a CR until Biden is out of office, so they're not going to talk about a one year CR. That would be the proper Republican thing to do. And anybody saying otherwise is deeply foolish. I know you and I, sir, do not agree with that sentiment. And my my goal here is to educate other members who don't understand the appropriations process as well as you and I, and many other of our colleagues that we serve alongside with. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law January 16, 2019 Witnesses: Eliza Dushku, Actor/Producer & Graduate Student Myriam Gilles, Professor of Law, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Lora Henry, Canton, OH Andowah Newton, New York, NY Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Tatiana Spottiswoode, Law Student, Columbia Law School Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Clips 30:59 Anna St. John: Instead, it's worth considering that taking away the possibility of arbitration for these victims is a top-down, heavy handed approach that denies them the advantages of arbitration as a means of adjudicating their claims. 41:04 Sarah Parshall Perry: Since the 1980s, the progressive leadership of this and the upper chamber has sought to curtail the protections of the Federal Arbitration Act through bills including the Arbitration Fairness Act, Arbitration Fairness for Students Act, Consumer Mobile Fairness Act, Fairness and Nursing Homes Act, Sonsumer Fairness Act, Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act, the Forced Arbitration Justice Repeal Act and many, many more. 47:13 Sarah Parshall Perry: arbitration agreements are not mandatory. No one, and the Supreme Court has held, is forced to sign a contract. But curtailing access to arbitration would injure, in the end, the very people that Congress has sought for nearly a century to protect. 54:50 Myriam Gilles: First, the entire regime is shrouded in secrecy. And not just because victims want to keep these issues confidential, which by the way is up to them, right? They should have the autonomy and the choice to decide. But because companies want to keep this stuff under wraps, they want to hide and shield sexual predators, and they don't want their business in the public eye. They don't want to deal with regulators or even with lawsuits. The secrecy here on its own just makes this a terrible way to deal with sexual harassment because it means that victims of sexual violence in the workplace who bravely tried to come forward are prohibited from telling their stories in a public forum. Instead, they're forced into this private process where everything is under wraps and siloed. Right, so this is the second bad thing. Victims can join together, even when their injuries stem from the same wrongdoing, even when they've occurred at the hands of the same perpetrator. Even when the company's tolerance for sexual harassment is structural and pervasive. Victims have to go it alone, never knowing about one another. They have to go into arbitration single file. I don't know where all these statistics are coming from about how great arbitration is how people win it all the time, because the truth is, no one goes into arbitration because it's siloed because it's secret because they don't know about what else is going on in the workplace. The secrecy that blankets these individualized proceedings prevents one victim from ever learning whether others right in the cubicle next to them might have experienced the same, the same tragedies, the same traumas and when vid when survivors are in the dark about cases filed by others in the workplace that makes coming forward that makes being the first person to come forward that much harder. As a corollary, and this is an important corollary, the relief that is available to the individual claimant doesn't prevent the wrongdoer from preying on other women doesn't prevent the predator from having all sorts of misconduct against other women in the workplace. The proceedings are one on one and the relief that arbitrators are allowed by contract to grant is individualized. They can't ever order any changes beyond what can help this one individual that happens to have the courage to come before them. I mean, can you imagine a worse system for dealing with toxic corporate culture because I can't. Third, and I think this is really important and all the survivors who've spoken about this forced arbitration is a system where the employers write the rules, and they pick the arbitral provider. Which means that victims of sexual harassment are shunted into a regime that stacked against them from the get go. First, because the arbitrators economic interest is to be very good to the repeat player employer so that they can be chosen for another arbitration next time. So the repeat player problem has been well documented, and I think it's alive and well in arbitration. And the secrecy protects that. And second, because the employer designs the entire arbitration process, it does so to serve its interests, not the interests of its workers, but its interests which again, are to keep discrimination and harassment under a veil of secrecy and out of the public eye. So given all of these things, given how bad this system is for victims of sexual harassment, it's no wonder that so few ever decide to go into private arbitration. I wouldn't. I think it sounds terrible. 1:04:00 Myriam Gilles: When an arbitration complaint is filed, it's filed in secret. In other words, the only entities that know that the arbitration has even been filed are the the employer, the employer, the complaining employee and the arbitration entity. The AAA or JAMS are one of these arbitration providers. Nobody else knows. Contrast that with court. I go down to the DC District Court today and I file a complaint, that complaint is on the public record. Right. And so as the defendants answer or motion to dismiss all the pleadings, their public litigation in the public court system, it has power, and the power it has is the power of signaling, not only to the defendant that I've sued, but to all similarly situated defendants that this is a wrong. This person has complained about something she's told her story, and she plans to prove it. None of that happens in arbitration from the beginning. It is private throughout the entire proceeding, which is held in a secret location, no public no press. All of it is private. Arbitrators don't write decisions. There are only three states in the union that currently require minimal disclosure of arbitrations pretty redacted and hard to read. If you're a researcher like I am about these issues. Other than that, everything that happens in arbitration is a black box. 1:32:18 Tatiana Spottiswoode: And the forced arbitration is so unfair. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): I understand you you think forced arbitration is unfair, that's great. Most of the people on that side want to eliminate it for everything not just situations like this. Other representative: will the gentleman yield for a question? Rep. Darrell Issa: I will not. 1:49:15 Myriam Gilles: The FAA was enacted in 1925. But it was enacted so that sophisticated business people could negotiate for arbitration provisions and those provisions would be respected by courts. It was never intended to be imposed via standard form contract. And in fact, if you read the legislative history, if you read the legislation, it accepts and exempts employees. So the idea that the FAA applies to employees is something that was created by a conservative majority of the Supreme Court in 1991, in a case called Circuit City, sorry, first actually was Gilmer and then Circuit City, I can't keep all the bad cases straight. And those are the cases in which the Court interpreted, I would say misinterpreted, the FAA to apply to employees like this. So that now employers can just stick these clauses into job applications, orientation materials, even an innocuous email from HR can include a forced arbitration clause. That was not what the 1925 Congress intended they they'd be rolled, they should be rolling in their in their grades. This is not what they intended. This is what a Supreme Court intent on protecting corporations intended beginning in the 1990s. 2:39:26 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): You know what's happened to so many women and others in the workplace is terrible but I really am concerned that by involving the government in these contracts between adults in the area of sexual harassment and assault we're opening a door for more government involvement in other areas of contracts. 2:42:09 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): And I would argue that you have you sign it it is not you know even though we use the it's forced arbitration as people are saying it's not really you you have signed something that you have agreed to it. House Committee on the Judiciary November 16, 2021 Witnesses: Gretchen Carlson, Journalist and Advocate Myriam Gilles, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Phil Goldberg, Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown L.L.P. Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Reserves Clips 26:35 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): You'll hear a different view from me. Eliminating arbitration achieves one thing, it enriches trial attorneys. 29:11 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): The AAJ, or American Association for Justice, is the nice sounding name of the plaintiffs attorneys lobbying organization. It also happens to be a huge donor to Democratic candidates, contributing millions of dollars each cycle to their campaigns. 29:52 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Mr. Chairman, point of order. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) What is your point of order? Rep. Jamie Raskin: My question is just can we impute the policy positions that members of the committee take to campaign contributions? Because if so, I think I'd be doing it a lot more frequently. I thought that's something that we don't do. Rep. David Cicilline: It's an excellent point of order, I'm sure Mr. Sensenbrenner didn't intend to communicate that in that way. Rep. Jamie Raskin: We're gonna be hearing a lot more of that in our committee if that's permissible, but I'm just curious. Maybe we can have some research done. Rep. James Sensenbrenner: Will the gentleman yield? Rep. David Cicilline: I think we don't need to engage with you. I this is an important issue with strongly held beliefs on both sides. [crosstalk] 36:00 Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): We used to have a concept in law. When I went to law school they still taught it called contracts of adhesion where a contract was unenforceable if one party had no choice in entering into it. All of these arbitration clauses almost are contracts of adhesion. You try when you want to get a credit card, try crossing out the fine print if you can find it without the magnifying glass that that says that you will settle all all disputes in arbitration, cross it out, see if you get the credit card. See if you get the bank loans if you get the mortgage. You have no see if you get the car loan, you have no choice. 1:42:00 Gretchen Carlson: arbitration means that you have no way of knowing that anyone else is facing the same thing within the confines of the workplace structure. There's no way to know because the whole process is secret. And as I described during my testimony, if you do muster up the courage to go and complain, and you have an arbitration clause, that's a good day for the company, because no one will ever know anything about your story. The worst ramification of all of this is that the perpetrator gets to stay in the job. And I think one of the reasons that we've seen this cultural revolution that we're experiencing right now is because the American public was actually so angry about hearing about these stories, and they were wondering, why didn't we know about this? And the reason they didn't know about it, is because of forced arbitration. 2:00:30 Deepak Gupta: I've gone back and looked at the history of the act from 1925. People weren't blind to the possibility of abuse. They raised these concerns before this, this committee, in fact, and the and the architects of the legislation were clear, this is about letting businesses have equal bargaining power that want to resolve their disputes out of court, letting them do that, and I have no objection to that. That makes perfect sense. But but the the drafters were clear this is not about foisting this on people who don't consent through, take it or leave it contracts. And in fact, Congress put in a provision section one of the Federal Arbitration Act that says this shall not apply to any class of workers. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has read that language to mean precisely the opposite. And now it can apply to any class of workers. And so so we have just we've strayed so far away from what Congress intended in 1925. And that's why only this body Congress can set things right. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD248: Understanding the Enemy

27 februari 2022 | 88 min

Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched an illegal, unjustified war against Ukraine and Putin himself is the only person who can stop the war immediately. In this episode, we seek to understand why President Putin has launched this horrific war in order to judge our country’s ability to bring the war to a quicker end. Executive Producer: Alex Bilotta Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : Keeping Ukraine : National Endowment for Democracy : Nuclear Desperation Ukraine Civil War Alan MacLeod. Feb 22, 2022. The Washington Standard. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Oct 8, 2021. United Nations. Andrew Higgins and Peter Baker. Feb 6, 2014. The New York Times. NATO Expansion Becky Sullivan. Updated Feb 24, 2022. NPR. Henry Meyer and Ilya Arkhipov. Dec 17, 2021. Bloomberg. Joe Dyke. Mar 20, 2021. Foreign Policy. NATO. Updated May 5, 2020. NATO. 2020. National Security Archive. December 12, 2017. Arms Control Association. February 9, 1990. National Security Archive. In The Encyclopedia Britannica. NATO in Ukraine Xinhua. Nov 14, 2021. News.cn Chad Menegay and Aimee Valles. Sept 22, 2021. NationalGuard.mil Reuters. April 3, 2021. U.S. News and World Report. NATO Allied Maritime Command. Mar 17, 2021. European Deterrence Initiative Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. Updated July 1, 2021. Congressional Research Service. Weapons Treaties TASS. Feb 21, 2022. Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Updated March 2021. Arms Control Association. Last reviewed August 2019. General Dynamics General Dynamics. Russia-China Alliance Chen Aizhu. Feb 4, 2022. Reuters. Robin Brant. Feb 4, 2022. BBC News. Sanctions Matina Stevis-Gridneff. Feb 25, 2022. The New York Times. Congressional Response Joe Gould. Feb 22, 2022. Defense News. Reuters. Feb 25, 2022. Reuters. Images State Property Fund of Ukraine USAID Partnership Audio Sources February 23, 2022 Overview: At her weekly briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with several of her Democratic colleagues, talked about the situation in Ukraine and President Biden’s sanctions after Russia recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region. Clips 10:25 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Putin is terrified by the prospect of a democracy at his border. A democracy, giving an example to the Russian people of the kind of life and economy they might enjoy if they cast aside their own autocrat. This is, I think, one of the preeminent motivations of Vladimir Putin. 15:32 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): I chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign operations, which oversees many of the resources to assist the Ukrainian people through this crisis. This includes our economic assistance to Ukraine, including loan guarantees. Economic assistance would come through the economic support accounts for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, those of the accounts that would come through. Without getting in too many of the weeds, I wanted to just mention that because it's an effort that we're looking at now in terms of our funding. It also includes humanitarian plans, including funding for refugees, God forbid, and for those internally displaced by conflict. The administration has committed to us that in the event of conflict, there is a need over the next 12 months of at least $1 billion for humanitarian needs. So I support the efforts of the administration also to bolster Ukraine's economy, including the proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to continue with Ukraine's economic reforms. 22:08 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): I will just close by saying this: I had the privilege of going with President Clinton, who invited four members of Congress House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Senate Democrat was Senator Joe Biden. And we went to the expansion of NATO meeting in Paris. And it was all the heads of state of the then NATO countries who spoke and it was so beautiful because they all spoke in such a positive way about NATO. We thought like we were NATO and they were also NATO, they had ownership and agency in possession of the NATO possibilities. The representative of Russia who was there was Boris Yeltsin. And he was very ebullient, but he was welcoming to what was called was the expansion we had supported in our own country, the Baltic States, Poland, others countries becoming what was called the Partnership for Peace and it included many countries. Now Putin is saying push it back to pre-1997. Don't ever try to add another country and remove weapons out of Eastern Europe. That's what he wanted. No, that was not going to happen. 33:35 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): What is this about? The people of Hung -- many of us have visited Ukraine and have seen that they love democracy. They do not want to live under Vladimir Putin. He does not want the Russian people to see what democracy looks like. And therefore he wants to bring them under his domain. 35:15 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): When we talk about the president, he's doing the sanctions. He has a full picture of all this. As I said, he was present there the day of the expansion of NATO. I saw the respect he commanded then, and that was 1997, by the heads of state of all those countries, and of course, that has only grown over time, by his leadership, but also the expansion of NATO. I think we're very well served, I respect his judgement. And again, it's not just about when you do the sanctions, or how you support the people. It's about how the world views what Putin is doing. This is a very evil move on the part of Vladimir Putin. February 22, 2022 Overview: During an address, President Biden announced new sanctions against Russia in response to President Vladimir Putin sending Russian troops into separatist regions of Ukraine. Clips 1:57 President Biden So, today, I’m announcing the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia in response to their actions yesterday. These have been closely coordinated with our Allies and partners, and we’ll continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates. We’re implementing full blocking sanctions on two large Russian financial institutions: V.E.B. and their military bank. We’re implementing comprehensive sanctions on Russian sovereign debt. That means we’ve cut off Russia’s government from Western financing. It can no longer raise money from the West and cannot trade in its new debt on our markets or European markets either. Starting tomorrow [today] and continuing in the days ahead, we will also impose sanctions on Russia’s elites and their family members. They share in the corrupt gains of the Kremlin policies and should share in the pain as well. And because of Russia’s actions, we’ve worked with Germany to ensure Nord Stream 2 will not — as I promised — will not move forward. 3:23 President Biden: Today, in response to Russia’s admission that it will not withdraw its forces from Belarus, I have authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic Allies — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part. We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message, though, that the United States, together with our Allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO. 4:22 President Biden: Russian forces remain positioned in Belarus to attack Ukraine from the north, including war planes and offensive missile systems. Russia has moved troops closer to Ukraine’s border with Russia. Russia’s naval vessels are maneuvering in the Black Sea to Ukraine’s south, including amphibious assault ships, missile cruisers, and submarines. Russia has moved supplies of blood and medical equipment into position on their border. You don’t need blood unless you plan on starting a war. 6:25 President Biden: I’m going to take robust action and make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at the Russian economy, not ours. We are closely monitoring energy supplies for any disruption. We’re executing a plan in coordination with major oil-producing consumers and producers toward a collective investment to secure stability and global energy supplies. This will be — this will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me. 7:37 President Biden: Yesterday, the world heard clearly the full extent of Vladimir Putin’s twisted rewrite of history, going back more than a century, as he waxed eloquently, noting that — well, I’m not going to go into it, but nothing in Putin’s lengthy remarks indicated any interest in pursuing real dialogue on European security in the year 2022. 8:04 President Biden: He directly attacked Ukraine’s right to exist. He indirectly threatened territory formerly held by Russia, including nations that today are thriving democracies and members of NATO. He explicitly threatened war unless his extreme demands were met. And there is no question that Russia is the aggressor. February 21, 2022 Overview: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced after a Security Council meeting that Russia would recognize the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine’s Donbas region. Clips 00:15 President Putin: I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties. 1:22 President Putin: I would like to start by saying that the modern Ukraine was completely created by Russia. To be more exact, Bolshevist, partially communist Russia. This process started almost immediately after the 1917 revolutions, leading and planning and his group of supporters did it in a rough way. If we talk about Russia, they were alienating parts of historical territories of Russia. And millions of people who live there, obviously no one asked anything. Then before the Great Patriotic War, Stalin added to the USSR and handed over some lands that belonged to Poland and Hungary, and as a compensation gave some ancient German lands to Poland. And the 1960s crucial decision to take Crimea away from Russia and also gave it to Ukraine. That's how the territory of Soviet Ukraine was formed. 3:05 President Putin: We cannot help but react to this real threat, especially since I would like to reiterate that Western backers they can help Ukraine with getting this weapon to create yet another threat for our country because we can see how consistently they are pumping Ukraine with weapons. The United States alone starting from 2014 transferred billions of dollars including the arm supply training personnel. In recent months, Western weapons are sent to Ukraine given ceaselessly in front of the eyes of the entire world 7:05 President Putin: Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks’ policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin’s harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine. 9:31 President Putin: Everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic. And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. 10:05 President Putin: It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union. 13:55 President Putin: Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience. 14:39 President Putin: It was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty. According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion. 21:24 President Putin: A stable statehood has never developed in Ukraine; its electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans. Corruption, which is certainly a challenge and a problem for many countries, including Russia, has gone beyond the usual scope in Ukraine. It has literally permeated and corroded Ukrainian statehood, the entire system, and all branches of power. Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d'état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders’ bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. 23:37 President Putin: Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress. Having accomplished a coup d'état, the nationalists and those political forces that supported them eventually led Ukraine into an impasse, pushed the country into the abyss of civil war. 26:30 President Putin: In fact, it all came down to the fact that the collapse of the Ukrainian economy was accompanied by outright robbery of the citizens of the country, and Ukraine itself was simply driven under external control. It is carried out not only at the behest of Western capitals, but also, as they say, directly on the spot through a whole network of foreign advisers, NGOs and other institutions deployed in Ukraine. They have a direct impact on all the most important personnel decisions, on all branches and levels of government: from the central and even to the municipal, on the main state-owned companies and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian Railways, Ukroboronprom, Ukrposhta , Administration of Sea Ports of Ukraine. There is simply no independent court in Ukraine. At the request of the West, the Kiev authorities gave representatives of international organizations the pre-emptive right to select members of the highest judicial bodies - the Council of Justice and the Qualification Commission of Judges. In addition, the US Embassy directly controls the National Corruption Prevention Agency, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under a plausible pretext to increase the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. Okay, but where are the results? Corruption has blossomed as luxuriantly, and blooms, more than ever. Are the Ukrainians themselves aware of all these managerial methods? Do they understand that their country is not even under a political and economic protectorate, but reduced to the level of a colony with a puppet regime? The privatization of the state has led to the fact that the government, which calls itself the "power of patriots", has lost its national character and is consistently leading the matter towards the complete desovereignization of the country. 31:04 President Putin: In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia’s Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine.” 32:05 President Putin: As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era. In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. 33:47 President Putin: Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine’s armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this. Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads. The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved. A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned. Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine’s airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory. I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast. 36:54 President Putin: Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented. Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it. 37:16 President Putin: Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security 38:10 President Putin: Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy. 38:41 President Putin: A number of NATO member states are still very sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO. We are getting signals from some European capitals telling us not to worry since it will not happen literally overnight. In fact, our US partners are saying the same thing as well. “All right, then” we respond, “if it does not happen tomorrow, then it will happen the day after tomorrow. What does it change from the historical perspective? Nothing at all.” Furthermore, we are aware of the US leadership’s position and words that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not rule out the possibility of that country joining NATO if it meets NATO criteria and overcomes corruption. All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote. They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia. However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level. Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, including the pullout from Germany, from Central and Eastern Europe, making an immense contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold War. We have consistently proposed various cooperation options, including in the NATO-Russia Council and the OSCE formats. Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO. I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans’ true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO’s continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. 43:05 President Putin: Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO’s eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia’s borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust. The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems. In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities. The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. 45:07 President Putin: I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. 46:00 President Putin: Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO’s tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia’s airspace up to the Urals. Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary. Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future. 47:46 President Putin: Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table. We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities. Furthermore, it was made explicitly clear to us that only NATO members can have legally binding security guarantees. 48:35 President Putin: Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states. The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray. We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed. These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. 50:21 President Putin: They are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. 51:06 President Putin: I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do. 51:33 President Putin: With regard to the state of affairs in Donbass, we see that the ruling Kiev elites never stop publicly making clear their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the conflict and are not interested in a peaceful settlement. On the contrary, they are trying to orchestrate a blitzkrieg in Donbass as was the case in 2014 and 2015. We all know how these reckless schemes ended. Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks. The recently formed large military force makes use of attack drones, heavy equipment, missiles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this. Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions. How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass. Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one. In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly. 54:52 President Putin: We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine’s ruling regime. February 19, 2022 Overview: Western powers should drop their policy of "appeasement" toward Moscow, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky told a security forum Saturday, as fears mount of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Clips 13:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. 14:37 Vladimir Zelensky: Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. February 18, 2022 Overview: Following talks with NATO allies, President Biden provided an update on Russia-Ukraine tensions and international efforts to resolve the crisis. Clips 3:04 President Biden: You know, look, we have reason to believe the Russian forces are planning to and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week — in the coming days. We believe that they will target Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, a city of 2.8 million innocent people.War posturing - Biden US provided record security assistance to Ukraine 4:00 President Biden: This past year, the United States provided a record amount of security assistance to Ukraine to bolster its defensive — $650 million, from Javelin missiles to ammunition. And we also previously provided $500 million in Ukrai- — in humanitarian aid and economic support for Ukraine. And earlier this week, we also announced an additional sovereign loan guarantee of up to $1 billion to strengthen Ukraine’s economic resilience. 7:24 President Biden: Well, I don’t think he is remotely contemplating nuclear — using nuclear weapons. But I do think it’s — I think he is focused on trying to convince the world that he has the ability to change the dynamics in Europe in a way that he cannot. February 15, 2022 Overview: President Biden gave an update on tensions between Russia and Ukraine, calling for diplomacy to resolve tensions. Clips 1:47 President Biden: The United States has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in Europe. We’re proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. These measures would apply to all parties — NATO and Russia alike. 2:14 President Biden: We will not sacrifice basic principles, though. Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate. 3:17 President Biden: And the fact remains: Right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine’s border. An invasion remains distinctly possible. That’s why I’ve asked several times that all Americans in Ukraine leave now before it’s too late to leave safely. It is why we have temporarily relocated our embassy from Kyiv to Lviv in western Ukraine, approaching the Polish border. 4:12 President Biden: The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is not threatening Russia. Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well. 4:26 President Biden: To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture. 5:52 President Biden: Today, our NATO Allies and the Alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. And the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience, and universal appeal of our shared democratic values. Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It’s about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world. 7:25 President Biden: And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen. 7:35 President Biden: While I will not send American servicemen to fight Russia in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We have provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose. 7:50 President Biden: And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct. Already, in response to Russia’s build-up of troops, I have sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO’s eastern flank. Several of our Allies have also announced they’ll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO’s eastern flank. We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our Allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness. And if Russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassure our Allies, and deter further aggression. 9:12 President Biden: I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices. We’re coordinating with major enersy [sic] — energy consumers and producers. We’re prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump. And I will work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump. December 7, 2021 Overview: Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden’s earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia’s use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Clips 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. January 23, 2018 Clips 24:30 Former Vice President Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD247: BIF: The Growth of US Railroads

13 februari 2022 | 106 min

The infrastructure law provides the most significant investment in passenger rail in U.S. history, but substantial hurdles - including a powerful cartel - stand firmly in the way of a real national network. In this episode, learn the ways the infrastructure law paves the way for a better future for passenger rail along with the significant obstacles that it failed to address. Executive Producer: Alex Smith Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish YouTube Video Contributors to Supply Chain Issues Matthew Jinoo Buck. February 4, 2022. The American Prospect. Merriam-Webster.com. 2022. January 6, 2020. The Houston Chronicle. Passenger and Freight Rail: The Current Status of the Rail Network and the Track Ahead. October 21, 2020. 116th Cong. U.S. Internal Revenue Service. December 31, 2019. Dangers of Monster Trains and Rail Profiteering Aaron Gordon. Mar 22, 2021. Vice. U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. Dec 29, 2020. Marybeth Luczak. Nov 30, 2020. Railway Age. U.S. Government Accountability Office. May 30, 2019. Christina M. Rudin-Brown, Sarah Harris, and Ari Rosberg. May 2019. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Jessica Murphy. Jan 19, 2018. BBC. Eric M. Johnson. Dec 6, 2017. Reuters. Cumberland Times-News. Aug 12, 2017. The Tribune Democrat. Jeffrey Alderton. Aug 5, 2017. The Tribune Democrat. Jeffrey Alderton. Aug 3, 2017. The Tribune Democrat. New Jersey Department of Health. Revised June 2011. Stephen Joiner. Feb 11, 2010 Popular Mechanics. Lobbying and Corruption 2020. Open Secrets. 2020. Senate.gov. 2020. Open Secrets. 2018. Open Secrets. 2020. Senate.gov. What you really pay for TV Gavin Bridge. Oct 27, 2020. Variety. Laws Sponsor: Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Status: Became Public Law No. 117-58 Law Outline Authorizes appropriations for Federal-Aid for highways at between $52 billion and $56 billion per year through fiscal year 2026 (over $273 billion total). Authorizes $300 million for for 2022, which increases by $100 million per year (maxing out at $700 million in 2026) Authorizes between $25 million and $30 million per year for "community resilience and evacuation route grants" on top of equal amounts for "at risk coastal infrastructure grants" Authorizes a total of $6.53 billion (from two funds) for the bridge investment program Caps the annual total funding from all laws (with many exceptions) that can be spent on Federal highway programs. Total through 2026: $300.3 billion Allows money from the surface transportation block grant program to be used for "planning and construction" of projects that "facilitate intermodel connections between emerging transportation technologies", specifically naming the hyperloop For projects that cost $100 million or more, before entering into a contract with a private company, the government partner has to conduct a "value for money analysis" of the partnership. Three years after a project is opened to traffic, the government partner has to review the compliance of the private company and either certify their compliance or report to the Secretary of Transportation the details of the violation. The certifications or violation notifications must be publicly available "in a form that does not disclose any proprietary or confidential business information." Restructures/eliminates offices at the Department of Transportation to create an Office of Multimodal Freight Infrastructure and Policy The person in charge will be appointed by the President and has to be confirmed by the Senate Authorizes "such sums as are necessary" Authorizes $2 billion per year until 2026 ($10 billion total) on projects that cost at least $100 million that include highways, bridges, freight rail, passenger rail, and public transportation projects. The Federal government will pay a maximum of 80% of the project costs. Authorizes $1.5 billion per year until 2026 ($7.5 billion) (which will expire after 3 years) for grants for local transportation projects in amounts between $1 million and $25 million for projects that include highway, bridge, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, port infrastructure, surface transportation at airports, and more. Authorizes $800 million per year through 2026 ($4 billion) for grants for projects that replace, remove, or repair culverts (water channels) that improve or restore passages for fish. Authorizes appropriations for Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor at between $1.1 billion and $1.57 billion per year through 2026 ($6.57 billion total). Authorizes appropriations for Amtrak in the National Network at between $2.2 billion and $3 billion per year through 2026 ($12.65 billion total). Authorizes $1 billion per year through 2026 ($5 billion total) for rail infrastructure safety improvement grants Authorizes $500 million per year through 2016 ($2.5 billion total) for the elimination of railroad crossings Authorizes $1.5 billion per year through 2026 ($7.5 billion total) for grants to states to expand intercity passenger rail grants Changes the goal of cooperation between Amtrak, governments, & other rail carriers from "to achieve a performance level sufficient to justify expending public money" to "in order to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of the United States" and expands the service areas beyond "urban" locations. Changes the goals of Amtrak to include... "Improving its contracts with rail carriers over whose tracks Amtrak operates." "Offering competitive fares" "Increasing revenue from the transportation of mail and express" "Encourages" Amtrak to make agreement with private companies that will generate additional revenue Requires that at least one Amtrak ticket agent works at each station, unless there is a commuter rail agent who has the authority to sell Amtrak tickets Removes the requirement that Amtrak's food and beverage service financially break even in order to be offered on its trains Creates a working group to make recommendations about how to improve the onboard food and beverage service The report must be complete within one year of the working group's formation After the report is complete, Amtrak must create a plan to implementing the working group's recommendations and/or tell Congress in writing why they will not implement the recommendations The plan can not include Amtrak employee layoffs Requires Amtrak to prohibit smoking - including electronic cigarettes - on all Amtrak trains Prohibits Amtrak from cutting or reducing service to a rail route if they receive adequate Federal funding for that route Amtrak will not be allowed to privatize the jobs previously performed by laid off union workers. Authorizes $15 million for an Amtrak study on bringing back long distance rail routes that were discontinued. Extends the amount of time the government will pay the operating costs of Amtrak or "any rail carrier" partnered with Amtrak or a government agency that provides passenger rail service from 3 years to 6 years, and pays higher percentages of the the costs. Creates a program to eliminate highway-rail crossings where vehicles are frequently stopped by trains Authorizes the construction on tunnels and bridges Requires the government agency in charge of the project to "obtain the necessary approvals from any impacted rail carriers or real property owners before proceeding with the construction of a project" Each grant will be for at least $1 million each The Federal government will pay no more than 80% of the project's cost Authorizes up to 10 grants per year valued at a maximum of $1 million each to plan and promote new Amtrak routes The grant recipient will have to match the grant by at least 50% of the eligible expenses The Secretary of Transportation will create a program for public entities to plan for expanded intercity passenger rail corridors (which are routes that are less than 750 miles), operated by Amtrak or private companies. When developing plans for corridors, the Secretary has to "consult" with "host railroads for the proposed corridor" The Administration of the Federal Railroad Administration would establish a "3 year blocked crossing portal" which would collect information about blocked crossing by trains from the public and first responders and provide every person submitting the complaint the contact information of the "relevant railroad" and would "encourage" them to complain to them too. Information collected would NOT be allowed to be used for any regulatory or enforcement purposes Reports to Congress will be created using the information collected The Secretary of Transportation will have to issue a rule requiring that all carriers that transport human passengers have an emergency lighting system that turns on when there is a power failure. Requires the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to start pilot programs that were supposed to be conducted no later than 2010, which will test railroad employee scheduling rules designed to reduce employee fatigue. They will test... Assigning employees to shifts with 10 hours advance notice For employees subject to being on-call, having some shifts when those employees are not subject to being on-call. If the pilot programs have not begun by around March of 2023, a report will have to be submitted to Congress explaining the challenges, including "efforts to recruit participant railroads" The Comptroller General will conduct a study to determine the annual operation and maintenance costs for positive train control. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing to "persons" who violate regulations requiring railroads to report information about railroad crossings. Eliminates the minimum $500 fine for violating the regulations Allows the Attorney General to take the railroad to court to collect the penalty but prohibits the amount of the civil penalty from being reviewed by the courts. Allows, but does not require, the Secretary of Transportation to create regulations governing the noise levels of trains that exceed 160 mph. Effective 3 years after the regulations are complete (maximum 5 years after this becomes law), freight cars will be prohibited from operating within the United States if it has sensitive technology originating from or if more than 15% of it is manufactured in... "A country of concern" (which is defined as "). Countries on the nonmarket economy list include... Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus China Georgia Kyrgyz Republic Moldova Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam A country identified by the United States Trade Representative on its , which in 2020 included... China Indonesia India Algeria Saudi Arabia Russia Ukraine Argentina Chile Venezuela State owned enterprises The Secretary of Transportation can assess fines between $100,000 and $250,000 per freight car. A company that has been found in violation 3 times can be kicked out of the United States transportation system until they are in compliance and have paid all their fines in full. These rules will apply regardless of what was agreed to in the USMCA trade agreement. 180 days after this becomes law, all railroad mechanics will be subject to drug testing, which can be conducted at random. Bills Sponsor: Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Status: Referred to Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 03/14/2019 Hearings , Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials December 9, 2021 During the hearing, witnesses discussed plans for expanding intercity passenger rail in their states, regions, and networks, and how the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was recently signed into law, will support these efforts. Witnesses: Stephen Gardner, President, Amtrak David Kim, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Kevin Corbett, President and CEO of New Jersey Transit, Co-Chair, Northeast Corridor Commission, On behalf of Northeast Corridor Commission Julie White, Deputy Secretary for Multimodal Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Commission Chair, Southeast Corridor Commission, On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Southeast Corridor Commission Ms. Donna DeMartino, Managing Director, Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency Knox Ross, Mississippi Commission and Chair of the Southern Rail Commission Clips Rep. Rick Crawford: Finally, any potential expansion of the Amtrak system must include the full input of the freight railroads on capacity and track sharing issues. The ongoing supply chain crisis only further emphasizes the value of freight railroads and efficiently moving goods across the nation. The important work the freight railroads cannot be obstructed. Rep. Peter DeFazio The law is pretty clear: preference over freight transportation except in an emergency. Intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation and using a rail line junction crossing unless the board orders otherwise under this subsection. Well, obviously that has not been observed. Stephen Gardner: With the $66 billion provided to the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak we and our partners can finally have the chance to renew, improve or replace antiquated assets like the century old bridges and tunnels in the Northeast, inaccessible stations around the nation, and our vintage trains. Stephen Gardner: Additionally, we'll continue to work collaboratively with our partners where they see value in working with other parties to deliver parts of their service and with new railroad entities that aim to develop or deliver their own service. We simply ask that key railroad laws like the Railway Labor Act and railway retirement apply to new entrants, that the federal government gets equity and accountability for investments it makes in private systems, and that any new services create connections with Amtrak's national network Stephen Gardner: We've been working very closely with a variety of host railroads on opportunities to expand, notably Burlington Northern Santa Fe and our work to expand the Heartland Flyer service between Texas and Oklahoma and potentially extend that North to Wichita, Newton, in Colorado along the front range also with BNSF, to look at opportunities there. With Canadian Pacific we've been having really good conversations about launching a new service between the Twin Cities, Milwaukee and Chicago. Similarly, I think there's opportunities for that Baton Rouge to New Orleans service that Mr. Ross mentioned. Rep. Chuy Garcia: You've each had different experiences with freight railroads as the host railroad for your respective services. What can Congress do to help you as you discuss expanding and improving passenger rail service with your freight railroad? You'll have about 15 seconds each. Knox Ross: Congressman, thank you. I think it's enforcing the will of Congress and the law that set up Amtrak in the beginning is, as the Chairman talked about, in the beginning, that people have a preference over freight. Now we understand that we all have to work together to do that. But we think there are many ways that Amtrak and other other hosts can work together with the fright to get this done, but the law has to be enforced. Julie White: I would say that the money in the IIJA is going to be really important as we work, for example, on the S Line it is an FRA grant that enables us to acquire that line from CSX and enables us to grow freight rail on it at the same time as passenger. Rep. Tim Burchett: Also understand that Amtrak is planning to either expand or build new rail corridors in 26 states across the country over the next 15 years and I was wondering: what makes you think Amtrak will turn a profit in any of those communities? Stephen Gardner: But I would be clear here that our expectation is that these corridors do require support from states and the federal government, that they produce real value and support a lot of important transportation needs. But we measure those not necessarily by the profit of the farebox, so to speak, even though Amtrak has the highest farebox recovery of any system in the United States by far in terms of rail systems, we believe that Amtrak mission is to create mobility, mobility that creates value. We do that with as little public funding as we can, but the current services do require support investment and I think that's fair. All transportation modes require investment. Rep. Tim Burchett: Since you mentioned that you needed more funding down the line, don't you think it'd be better to make your current service corridors more profit -- or just profitable before you build new ones in other parts of the country? , Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials May 6, 2021 This hearing featured twelve witnesses from a range of perspectives, exploring the opportunities and limitations associated with high-speed rail and emerging technologies, including regulatory oversight, technology readiness, project costs, and available federal resources. Witnesses: John Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Transportation Rachel Smith, President and CEO of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Phillip Washington, CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Danielle Eckert, International Representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Carbett "Trey" Duhon III, Judge in Waller County, TX Andy Kunz, President and CEO of the US High Speed Rail Association Carlos Aguilar, President and CEO of Texas Central High Speed Rail William Flynn, CEO of Amtrak Josh Giegel, CEO and Co-Founder of Virgin Hyperloop Andres de Leon, CEO of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies Michal Reininger, CEO of Brightline Trains Wayne Rogers, Chairman and CEO of Northeast Maglev Clips 8:37 - 8:48 Rep. Rick Crawford: Rail is also considered one of the most fuel efficient ways to move freight. On average freight rail can move one ton of freight over 470 miles on one gallon of fuel. Rep. Peter DeFazio: You know we have put aggregate with the essentially post World War Two, mostly the Eisenhower program, $2 trillion -- trillion -- into highways, invested by the federal government, a lot of money. But post World War Two $777 billion into aviation, airports, runways, air traffic control etc. And, and we have put about $90 billion total into rail. John Porcari: As I evaluated ways to increase capacity in the Baltimore-New York City corridor, these were my choices: I could add air capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport and New York with 90% federal funding for runway and taxiway improvements, I could add highway capacity on I-95 to New York with 80% federal funding, or add passenger rail capacity with zero federal funding for that 215 mile segment. A passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or flying, yet passenger rail capacity was the least likely alternative to be selected. So if you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation system we have today, follow the money. John Porcari: It's an extraordinary statement of state priorities that the California High Speed Rail Authority's 2020 Business Plan anticipates 85% of its funding from state sources and only 15% federal funding for this project of national and regional significance. This is a remarkable state financial commitment and a clear declaration of the state's project priorities. Yet there's no ongoing sustained federal financial partner for this multi year program of projects. 23:54 - 24:28 John Porcari: To match the people carrying capacity of phase one of the high speed rail system, California would need to invest $122 to $199 billion towards building almost 4200 highway lane miles, the equivalent of a new six lane highway and the construction of 91 new airport gates and two new runways. The San Francisco-Los Angeles air loop is already the ninth busiest in the world, and the busiest air route in America. Doesn't it make sense to prioritize this finite and expensive airport capacity for trans continental and international flights? 24:28 - 24:40 John Porcari: For California the 120 to 209 billion of required highway and airport capacity as an alternative to high speed rail is double the 69 to 99 billion cost estimate for phase one of the high speed rail system. 25:05 - 25:18 John Porcari: Providing real transportation choices at the local and state level requires the establishment of a Passenger Rail Trust Fund on par with our Highway Trust Fund and Airport and Airway Trust Fund. 48:00 - 48:23 Trey Duhon: Texas Central promised this project was privately financed, and everything they've done today, including the EIS was based on that. So we say let it live or die in the free market and invest our tax dollars in more equitable transportation solutions. We should not have to pay for another train to nowhere while having our communities destroyed by the very tax dollars that we work hard to contribute. 49:48 - 50:42 Andy Kunz: High Speed Rail can unlock numerous ridership opportunities. Essential workers like teachers, police and firemen in the high price Silicon Valley could find affordable housing options with a short train ride to Merced or Fresno in California's Central Valley. Residents of Eugene, Oregon could access jobs in Portland's tech sector or booming recreational industry with a 35 minute commute. A Houston salesperson could prepare for an important client meeting in Dallas with dedicated Wi Fi and ample workspace while gliding past the notorious congestion on I-45. A college student in Atlanta could make it home for Thanksgiving in Charlotte while picking up grandma along the way in Greenville, South Carolina. International tourists visiting Disney World in Orlando could extend their vacation with a day trip to the Gulf beaches of the Greater Tampa Bay area. 51:41 - 54:58 Andy Kunz: High Speed Rail has an unmatched track record of safety. Japan, with the world's first high speed rail network, has carried millions of people over 50 years without a single fatality, in comparison as many as 40,000 Americans are killed every year in auto accidents on our highways. 52:22 - 52:45 Andy Kunz: China has invested over a trillion dollars in high speed rail, allowing them to build a world class 22,000 mile network in 14 years. Not taking a pause, China plans to construct another 21,000 miles of track over the next nine years. Modern infrastructure like this fuels China's explosive economic growth, making it challenging for us to compete with them in the 21st century. 52:46 - 53:10 Andy Kunz: On the other side of the globe, the United Kingdom is currently doubling their rail network with $120 billion investment. France has invested over $160 billion in constructing their system. Spain's 2000 mile High Speed Rail Network is the largest in Europe, costing more than 175 billion. These are considerable investments by nations that are similar in size to Texas. 1:08:00 - 1:09:00 Rep. Peter DeFazio: Are you aware of any high speed rail project in the world that isn't government subsidized? I know, Virgin in, you know, in Great Britain says, well, we make money. Yeah, you make money. You don't have to maintain the rail, the government does that, all you do is put a train set on it and run it. John Porcari: Yeah, that's a really important point, Mr. Chairman, virtually every one that I'm aware of in the world has had a very big public investment in the infrastructure itself, the operation by a private operator can be very profitable. I would point out that that is no different, conceptually from our airways system, for example, where federal taxpayer investments make possible the operations of our airlines, which in turn are profitable and no different than our very profitable trucking industry in the US, which is enabled by the public infrastructure investment of the highway system itself. 1:09:46 - 1:10:37 Philip Washington: The potential is very, very good to make that connection with the private railroad. And actually that is the plan. And we are working with that, that private railroad right now to do that. And that connection with the help of some twin bore tunnel will allow train speeds to be at anywhere from 180 to 200 miles an hour, getting from that high desert corridor to Los Angeles. And so it's a it's a huge, huge effort. It links up with high speed rail from the north as well, with the link up coming into Union Station as well. So I think the potential to link up both of these are very, very great. And we're working with both entities. 1:11:31 - 1:12:13 Philip Washington: Well one of our ideas very quickly is right now we have as you know, Mr. Chairman, assembly plants, assembly plants all over the country what we are proposing is a soup to nuts, all included manufacturing outfit in this country that manufactures trains from the ground up, forging steel, all of those things. So we have proposed an industrial park with suppliers on site as well to actually build again from the ground up, rail car passenger rail car vehicles and locomotives. It is the return of manufacturing to this country as we see it. 1:21:16 - 1:21:50 John Porcari: We have 111 year old tunnel in New York, we have a B&P tunnel in Baltimore, that Civil War era. Those are not the biggest obstacles. It is more a question of will. What we want to do as a country in infrastructure, we do, and we've never made rail, really the priority that that I think it needs to be. And we've never provided meaningful choices for the states to select rail and build a multi year rail program because we don't have the funding part of it. 1:21:55 - 1:22:19 John Porcari: Our passenger rail system in the US is moving from a survival mode to a growth mode. And I think that's a very healthy thing for the country. Whether you're talking about our cross country service, one of the coastal corridors or the Midwest service, all of that is really important. In just the same way we built the interstates, city pairs aggregating into a national system, we can really do that with the passenger rail system if we have the will. 1:27:13 - 1:27:41 Rep. Michelle Steel: My constituents are already taxed enough, with California state and local taxes and skyrocketing gas prices making it unaffordable to live. I just came back from Texas, their gas price was $2 something and we are paying over $4 in California. We must preserve our local economy by lowering taxes not raising them. And we must not continue throwing tax dollars into a high speed money pit. 1:30:53 - 1:31:11 Trey Duhon: The folks in Waller county the folks that I know, a family of four is not going to pay $1,000 To ride a train between Houston and Dallas, when they can get there on a $50 tank of gas an hour and a half later. It's just not going to happen. So it's not a mass transit solution, at least not for this corridor. 1:48:56 - 1:49:25 Andy Kunz: The other big thing that hasn't been mentioned is the the cost of people's time and waste sitting stuck in traffic or stuck in airports. It's estimated to be several 100 billion dollars a year. And then as a business person, time is money. So if all your people are taking all day to get anywhere your entire company is less competitive, especially against nations that actually have these efficient systems, and then they can out compete us 2:03:52 - 2:04:13 Seth Moulton: And I would just add, you know, we build high speed rail, no one's gonna force you to take it. You have that freedom of choice that Americans don't have today and yet travelers all around the world have. I don't understand why travelers in China should have so much more freedom than we do today. In America, high speed railway would rapidly rectify that 3:01:09 - 3:01:27 Josh Giegel: In 2014 I co-founded this company in a garage when Hyperloop was just an idea on a whiteboard. By late 2016 We began construction of our first full system test set, dev loop, north of Las Vegas. To date we've completed over 500 tests of our system. 3:01:38 - 3:01:48 Josh Giegel: Today we have approximately 300 employees and are the leading Hyperloop company in the world and the only company, the only company to have had passengers travel safely in a Hyperloop. 3:01:48 - 3:02:33 Josh Giegel: Hyperloop is a high speed surface transportation system. Travel occurs within a low pressure enclosure equivalent to 200,000 feet above sea level, in a vehicle pressurized to normal atmospheric conditions, much like a commercial aircraft. This, along with our proprietary magnetic levitation engine, allows us to reach and maintain airline speeds with significantly less energy than other modes of transportation. Not only is Hyperloop fast, it's a high capacity mass transit system capable of comfortably moving people and goods at 670 miles per hour with 50,000 passengers per hour per direction, on demand and direct to your destination, meaning no stops along the way. 3:02:54 - 3:02:58 Josh Giegel: We achieve all this on a fully electric system with no direct emissions. 3:11:34 - 3:11:53 Mike Reininger: Since our 2018 launch in Florida, we operate the only private high speed system in the US, showcasing the potential of American high speed passenger rail. We carried more than a million passengers in our first full year and learned a lot that is worth sharing from the investment of over $4 billion over the last 10 years. 3:12:45 - 3:12:57 Mike Reininger: We use existing road alignments and infrastructure corridors to leverage previous investments, reduce environmental impacts, lower costs, and speed execution as a basis for profitability. 3:13:00 - 3:13:28 Mike Reininger: In 2022, we will complete the extension into the Orlando International Airport, making our total route 235 miles, linking four of the largest cities in America's third largest state. 400 million annual trips occur between these cities today, 95% of them by car. By upgrading a freight railway first built in the 1890s and building along an Express Highway, we leveraged 130 years of previous investment to support our 21st century service. 3:13:31 - 3:13:51 Mike Reininger: Brightline West will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles, where today 50 million annual trips and over 100 daily flights occur. Traveling on trains capable of speeds of 200 miles an hour using the I-15 corridor, but cutting the drive time in half, Brightline West's better option expects to serve 11 million annual riders. 3:14:56 - 3:15:08 Mike Reininger: Consider allowing private entities to become eligible parties for FRA grant programs by partnering with currently eligible applicants as a simple way to stretch direct government investment. 3:29:39 - 3:29:54 Rep. Rick Crawford: Amtrak announced plans to expand its routes including to several small cities where there doesn't appear to be enough demand or population to warrant those new lines. Can you guarantee that those new routes will be self sustaining and turn a profit or will they lose money? 3:38:42 - 3:38:55 Bill Flynn: 125 miles an hour on existing track infrastructure is high speed. The newest Acelas we ordered will have a top speed of 186 miles an hour. 3:36:46 - 3:37:05 Rep. Seth Moulton: What is the top speed of the Acela service? Bill Flynn: The Acela service in the southern network, Washington to New York, top speeds 135 miles an hour, and then in New York to Boston top speed of 150 miles an hour across different segments of the track. 4:11:57 - 4:12:30 Bill Flynn: When we think about NEPA and the other permitting processes that take place, and then ultimately into construction, on many major projects, we're talking a decade or more. So without the visibility and predictability and the certainty of funding, these projects are all affected, they ultimately become more high cost, and they take longer than they should. So if I were to recommend one policy action, creating a trust fund, or trust fund like structure, for intercity passenger rail would be key. , Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials March 10, 2021 The hearing explored the importance of rail to the U.S. economy and as a tool to mitigate climate change. Witnesses: Shannon Valentine, Secretary of Transportation, The Commonwealth of Virginia Caren Kraska, President/Chairman, Arkansas & Missouri Railroad Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO Tom Williams, Group Vice President for Consumer Products, BNSF Railway Clips 18:17 - 18:50 Shannon Valentine: One of the worst rail bottlenecks, mentioned by Chairman DeFazio, along the east coast is at the Potomac River between Virginia and DC and it's called the long bridge which is owned by CSX. The bridge carries on passenger, commuter, and freight rail, nearly 80 trains a day and is at 98% capacity during peak periods. Due to these constraints, Virginia has been unable to expand passenger rail service, even though demand prior to the pandemic was reaching record highs. 18:50 - 19:42 Shannon Valentine: Virginia has been engaged in corridor planning studies, one of which was the I-95 corridor, which as you all know, is heavily congested. Even today as we emerge from this pandemic, traffic has returned to 90% of pre-pandemic levels. Through this study, we learned that adding just one lane in each direction for 50 miles would cost $12.5 billion. While the cost was staggering, the most sobering part of the analysis was that by the time that construction was complete, in 10 years, the corridor would be just as congested as it is today. That finding is what led Virginia to a mode that could provide the capacity at a third of the cost. 20:34 - 20:43 Shannon Valentine: According to APTA rail travel emits up to 83% fewer greenhouse gases than driving and up to 73% fewer than flying. 20:58 - 21:22 Shannon Valentine: Benefits can also be measured by increased access to jobs and improving the quality of life. The new service plan includes late night and weekend service because many essential jobs are not nine to five Monday through Friday. That is why we work to add trains leaving Washington in the late evening and on weekends, matching train schedules to the reality of our economy. 52:23 - 53:06* Rep. Peter DeFazio: I am concerned particularly when we have some railroads running trains as long as three miles. And they want to go to a single crew for a three mile long train. I asked the the former head of the FRA under Trump if the train broke down in Albany, Oregon and it's blocking every crossing through the city means no police, no fire, no ambulance, how long it's going to take the engineer to walk three miles from the front of the train to, say, the second car from the rear which is having a brake problem. And he said, Well, I don't know an hour. So you know there's some real concerns here that we have to pursue. 1:23:25 - 1:24:15 Shannon Valentine: When we first launched the intercity passenger rail, Virginia sponsored passenger rail, back in 2009, it really started with a pilot with $17 million for three years from Lynchburg, Virginia into DC into the new Northeast Corridor. And, and I had to make sure that we had 51,000 riders and we didn't know if we were going to be able to sustain it. And in that first year, we had 125,000 passengers. It always exceeded expectations for ridership and profitability. And today, that rail service which we now extend over to Roanoke, and we're working to get it to Blacksburg Christiansburg is really one of our most profitable rail services. In fact, probably in the country. It doesn't even need a subsidy because they're able to generate that kind of ridership. 2:10:21 - 2:12:11 Shannon Valentine: Our project, in my mind, is really the first step in creating a southeast high speed corridor, we have to build the bridge. In order to expand access, we need to be able to begin separating passenger and freight. And even before that is able to occur, building signings and creating the ability to move. We took a lot of lessons from a study called the DC to RDA again, it's the first part of that high speed southeast corridor. For us, it was recommended that we take an incremental approach rather than having a large 100 billion dollar project we're doing in increments. And so this is a $3.7 billion which is still going to help us over 10 years create hourly service between Richmond and DC. It was recommended that we use existing infrastructure and right of way so in our negotiations with CSX, we are acquiring 386 miles of right of way and 223 miles of track. We are also purchasing as part of this an S line. It's abandoned. It goes down into Ridgeway, North Carolina from Petersburg, Virginia, just south of Richmond. Because it's abandoned, we have a lot of opportunity for development for future phases or even higher speed rail. And we actually included part of Buckingham branch, it's an East West freight corridor that we would like to upgrade and protect for, for East West connection. All of these were incremental steps using existing right of way and tracks and achieving higher speeds where it was achievable. , Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials November 18, 2020 Witnesses: Ann D. Begeman, Chairman, Surface Transportation Board Martin J. Oberman, Vice Chairman, Surface Transportation Board Romayne C. Brown, Chair of the Board of Directors, Metra Stephen Gardner, Senior Executive Vice President, Amtrak Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute Paul Skoutelas, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Public Transportation Association Clips 27:31 - 27:59 Daniel Lipinski: Unlike Amtrak, Metra and other commuter railroads do not have a statutory federal preference prioritizing commuter trains over freight trains. Additionally, commuter railroads generally do not have standing to bring cases before the STB. Therefore, commuter railroads have very limited leverage when it comes to trying to expand their service on freight rail lines and ensuring that freight railroads Do not delay commuter trains. 35:42 - 36:27 Rep. Peter DeFazio: In fact, Congress included provisions to fix Amtrak on time performance in 2008. That is when PRIA added a provisions directing the FRA and Amtrak to work to develop on time performance metric standards to be used as a basis for an STB investigation. Unfortunately, those benefits haven't been realized. It's been 12 years since PRIA was passed. If our eyes metric and standards for on time performance were published this last Monday 12 years later, for the second time, and after this long and unacceptable delay, I look forward to seeing an improvement on Amtrak's performance both in in my state and nationwide. 38:01 - 38:32 Rep. Peter DeFazio: Worldwide, I'm not aware of any railroads, passenger railroads, that make money, although Virgin claims they do in England because they don't have to maintain the tracks. Pretty easy to make money if all you have to do is put a train set on it, run it back and forth. That's not the major expense. So, you know, to say that we shouldn't be subsidizing commuter or we shouldn't be subsidizing Amtrak is, you know, is just saying you don't want to run trains. Because everywhere else in the world they're subsidized. 43:45 - 44:30 Ann Begeman: Most intercity passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak, which is statutorily excluded from many of the board's regulatory requirements applicable to freight carriers. However, with the enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIA) which both Chairman Lipinski and Chairman De Fazio has have mentioned in their opening comments, as well as the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015. FAST Act, the board assumed additional Amtrak oversight responsibilities, including the authority to conduct investigations under certain circumstances, and when appropriate, to award relief and identify reasonable measures to improve performance on passenger rail routes. 1:02:24 - 1:03:07 Stephen Gardner: Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to take on a job that today's freight railroads no longer wanted. In exchange for contracts assumption of these private railroads common carrier obligation for passengers and the associated operating losses for passenger service, the freights agreed to allow Amtrak to operate wherever and whenever it wanted over their lines, to provide Amtrak trains with dispatching preference over freight, and to empower what is now the STB to ensure Amtrak's access to the rail network. It's been nearly 50 years since the freight railroads and agreed eagerly to this bargain. And yet today, many of our hosts railroads fall short and fulfilling some of these key obligations 1:03:28 - 1:04:38 Stephen Gardner: Since our founding, Congress has had to clarify and amend the law to try and ensure host compliance. For example, by 1973, the freights had begun delaying Amtrak train so severely that Congress enshrined this promise of Amtrak preference into federal law, and in 2008, delays had gotten so bad that Congress created a new process to set Amtrak on time performance and provided the STB with the authority to investigate poor OTP. But for several reasons, these efforts haven't remedied the problems. For Amtrak and your constituents that has meant millions of delayed passengers and years of impediment as we try to add trains or start new routes to keep up with changing markets and demand. As the AAR are made clear and its litigation opposing the PRIA metrics and standards rule, many hosts see supporting our operation not as their obligation to the public, but as competition for the use of their infrastructure. But Amtrak wasn't created to relieve host railroads of their requirements to support passenger trains. It was created to help them reduce financial losses and ensure that passenger trains could still serve the country 1:04:38 - 1:05:15 Stephen Gardner: We need this committee's help to restore your original deal with the freights. For example you can provide us as you have in the moving forward Act, a way to enforce our existing rights of preference. You can make real Amtrak statutory ability to start new routes and add additional trains without arbitrary barriers. You can create an office of passenger rail within the STB and require them to use their investigative powers to pursue significant instances of for OTP. You can require more efficient STB processes to grant Amtrak access to hosts and fairly set any compensation and capital investment requirements. 1:06:19 - 1:07:57 Stephen Gardner: A rarely heralded fact is that the U.S. has the largest rail network in the world. And yet we use so little of it for intercity passenger rail service. A fundamental reason for this is our inability to gain quick, reasonable access to the network and receive reliable service that we are owed under law. This has effectively blocked our growth and left much of our nation underserved. City pairs like Los Angeles and Phoenix, or Atlanta to Nashville could clearly benefit from Amtrak service. Existing rail lines already connect them. Shouldn't Amtrak be serving these and many other similar corridors nationwide? 1:12:34 - 1:12:57 Randall O'Toole: Last year, the average American traveled more than 15,000 miles by automobile, more than 2000 Miles, road several 100 miles on buses, walked more than 100 Miles, rode 100 miles by urban rail, transit and bicycled 26 miles. Meanwhile, Amtrak carried the average American just 19 Miles. 1:13:35 - 1:13:55 Randall O'Toole: In 1970, the railroads' main problem was not money losing passenger trains, but over regulation by the federal and state governments. Regulation or not, passenger trains are unable to compete against airlines and automobiles. A 1958 Interstate Commerce Commission report concluded that there was no way to make passenger trains profitable. 1:14:52 - 1:15:20 Randall O'Toole: The 1970 collapse of Penn Central shook the industry. Congress should have responded by eliminating the over regulation that was stifling the railroads. Instead, it created Amtrak with the expectation that it would be a for profit corporation and that taking passenger trains off the railroads hands would save them from bankruptcy 50 years and more than $50 billion in operating subsidies later, we know that Amtrak isn't and never will be profitable. 1:15:40 - 1:16:10 Randall O'Toole: When Amtrak was created, average rail fares per passenger mile were two thirds of average airfares. Thanks to airline deregulation since then, inflation adjusted air fares have fallen by 60%. Even as Amtrak fares per passenger mile have doubled. Average Amtrak fares exceeded airfares by 1990 despite huge operating subsidies, or perhaps as has well predicted, because those subsidies encouraged inefficiencies. 1:16:50 - 1:17:15 Randall O'Toole: Today thanks to more efficient operations, rail routes that once saw only a handful of trains per day support 60, 70 or 80 or more freight trains a day. This sometimes leaves little room for Amtrak. Displacing a money making freight train with a money losing passenger train is especially unfair considering that so few people use a passenger trains, while so many rely on freight. 1:17:15 - 1:17:25 Randall O'Toole: Passenger trains are pretty, but they're an obsolete form of transportation. Efforts to give passenger trains preference over freight we'll harm more people than it will help. 2:42:40 - 2:43:50 Stephen Gardner: We think that the poor on time performance that many of our routes have is a significant impediment to ridership and revenue growth. It's quite apparent, many of our passengers, particularly on our long distance network, that serves Dunsmuir, for instance, you know their routes frequently experience significant delays, the number one cause of those delays are freight train interference. This is delays encountered, that Amtrak encounters when freight trains are run in front of us or otherwise dispatching decisions are made that prioritize the freight trains in front of Amtrak. And the reduction in reliability is clearly a problem for passengers with many hour delays. Often our whole long distance network is operating at 50% or less on time performance if you look at over the many past years. Even right now, through this period of COVID, where freight traffic has been down and we're only at 60% over the last 12 months on time performance for the entire long distance network. 2:52:44 - 2:53:23 Stephen Gardner: The difference between the US system and most of the international examples is that the infrastructure is publicly owned, publicly owned and developed in all of these nations, the nations that Mr. O'Toole mentioned, there is a rail infrastructure entity and they're developing it for both passenger and freight in some of those locations are optimized for passenger service primarily, that's for sure the case. China is a great example of a nation that's investing for both as a massive freight system and an incredible amount of investment for passenger rail. And again, they see high speed as a means of dealing with their very significant population and efficient way. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD246: BIF: Appalachian Chemical Storage

30 januari 2022 | 75 min

The Infrastructure Law that was signed in late 2021 funds the first phase of a huge infrastructure project called the Appalachian Storage Hub, which would consist of large gas processing plants, underground chemical storage facilities, and pipeline networks to connect them all together. In this episode, get the details - as many as are known - about the plans for this possible project. Is this a good idea for our country? Please Support Congressional Dish Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : BIF The Infrastructure BILL : Lights Out: What Happened in Texas? : The EpiPen Hearing Negative Impacts of Natural Gas Susan Phillips. Dec 27, 2021. WHYY. CBS Philly. Oct 5, 2021. Forty-Fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury. Oct 5, 2021. attorneygeneral.gov Gunnar W. Schade. Aug 3, 2020. Texas A and M Today. Emily Henderson. Jul 15 2020. James Bruggers. Apr 21, 2020. Leo Weekly. Environmental Integrity Project. Jan 21, 2020. Britain Eakin and David Lee. Oct 31, 2017. Courthouse News Service. Josh Fox. 2010. Jan 13, 2010. Dallas Morning News. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Lettice Stuart. July 15, 1990. The New York Times. Peter Applebome. Nov 28, 1988. The New York Times. Appalachian Hub Kathy Hipple and Anne Keller. November 2021. Ohio River Valley Institute. Kathy Hipple and Anne Keller. November 2021. Ohio River Valley Institute. Kentucky Beyond Fossil Fuels. Last updated August 2021. Reuters Staff. Oct 9, 2020. Reuters. Keith Schneider. Jul 31, 2019. ProPublica. U.S. Department of Energy. Dec 4, 2018. U.S. Department of Energy. Nov 2018. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. Steve Horn. Feb 6, 2018. DeSmog. Open Secrets. Appalachian Regional Commission Baltimore Sun Editorial Board. Jan 07, 2019. Appalachian Regional Commission. The Manchins Alex Kotch. Jul 20, 2021. The Guardian. Liza Featherstone. 2021. Jacobin. Open Secrets. Images U.S. Department of Energy. Ethane Storage and Distribution Hub in the United States: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Energy. Ethane Storage and Distribution Hub in the United States: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Energy. Ethane Storage and Distribution Hub in the United States: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Energy. Ethane Storage and Distribution Hub in the United States: Report to Congress. The Law Sponsor: Rep. Peter DeFazio Overview of provisions funding Appalachian Storage Hub : Appalachian Regional Commission Allows the Appalachian Regional Commission () to make grants, "enter into contracts, or otherwise provide amounts to individuals or entities" for projects to increase affordable access to broadband networks in the Appalachian region. Authorizes $20 million per year for the broadband projects through 2026. Allows the Appalachian Regional Commission to make grants, "enter into contracts, or otherwise provide amounts to individuals or entities" for projects to research the economic impact of an "ethane storage hub in the Appalachian region... such as a project with the capacity to store and distribute more than 100,000 barrels per day of hydrocarbon feedstock with a minimum gross heating value of 1,700 Btu per standard cubic foot" that will "help establish a regional energy hub in the Appalachian region for natural gas and natural gas liquids, including hydrogen produced from the steam methane reforming of natural gas feedstocks." Waives any other provision or law that limits Federal funding for this, and it allows the Appalachian Regional Commission to determine the Federal share. Allows the funding from this law to be combined with money from "any other Federal program" and from "any other source" Authorizes $5 million per year for analyzing this project Almost doubles the Appalachian Regional Commission's funding to $200 million per year through 2026 Bills Hearings August 29, 2016 Witnesses: Dr. Brian J. Anderson Director, West Virginia University Energy Institute Dr. John Deskins Director, Bureau for Business and Economic Research, West Virginia University Mr. Chad Earl Director of Marketing and Business Development, Orders Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Steven Hedrick President and Chief Executive Officer, Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center Mr. Jeffery Keffer President and Chief Executive Officer, Longview Power, LLC Mr. Dan Poling Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer, District Council 53, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Sound Clip Transcripts: 6:32 - 6:59 Sen. Shelley Moore Capito: So using ethane from Natural Gas as a feedstock means that chemical companies can choose to operate in West Virginia due to the enormous benefits of being right on top of the resource. That's why, again, I included language in the energy bill that will require the Department of Energy and Commerce to conduct a study to look at the feasibility of an ethane storage and distribution hub here in Appalachia, in West Virginia or in the region. 11:34 - 12:00 Sen. Joe Manchin: In 2016 Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA projected that even in a clean power plan scenario, coal and natural gas will make up approximately half of our electric generation mix in 2040. We talk about deniers you know, there's those who deny that there's climate change going on. And there's those who deny that we're going to be needing fossil for the next two, three or four decades. 12:50 - 13:33 Sen. Joe Manchin: Infrastructure, we must put the necessary infrastructure in place to take advantage of the robust opportunities that come from our abundant natural resources, while ensuring the reliability of our electric grid. And I will mention one thing. I've spoken to a lot of our state legislators. And I said, we've got to start thinking in terms of regional energy have Mid-Atlantic energy, regions such as the southwest, we should be looking at Pennsylvania and Ohio as part of this region, not the borders that separate us but basically the ability that we have to work together, build these pipelines that basically keep some of this product in this market area. To attract it, they say, build it and they will come. I truly believe if you have it, they will come but you have to have access to it. 18:42 - 19:00 Brian Anderson: Over the last 10 years production of ethane and propane at the Marcellus and Utica Shales have driven the cost of these very valuable raw materials to a price point well below global and national prices. Connecting this valuable resource to the national and global markets will take modern, robust infrastructure, the topic of this hearing. 19:01 - 19:13 Brian Anderson: I contend that the types of infrastructure necessary to benefit both the region and the nation is not only a reliable modern network of pipelines but also a robust regional system with natural gas liquid storage and distribution 20:12 - 20:28 Brian Anderson: With current production rates in the in the basin, around 500,000 barrels per day, the resource is certainly sufficient to support a renewed and robust chemical industry. That is, as long as there is modern and robust energy transportation infrastructure to support that. 21:42 - 22:32 Brian Anderson: The goal of this project is to provide essential data to support the development of the chemical manufacturing industry, promoting economic development. As evidenced by the industry's commitment to our project, developing storage and transportation infrastructure is a critical pathway to developing the industry in the region. Subsurface storage and distribution and a network of pipelines will benefit both the raw material producers -- the upstream oil and gas industry -- as well as the chemical industry by fostering a readily available and reliable network and research and source of natural gas liquids, developing a predictable price point of the commodity in the region. Currently, there is only one spot pricing for natural gas liquids in the United States and Gulf Coast. And thirdly, promoting regional investment in a more robust ecosystem for the industry. 38:55 - 39:50 Steven Hedrick: Rather than exporting additional ethane available via pipelines in the United States Gulf Coast to Europe, Asia or even Canada, it could be utilized here in the Appalachian Basin, here in America, to maximize the value potential of our raw materials. According to the publication the Natural Gas Intelligence, ethane accounts for more than 50% of the typical barrel in the Appalachian region, with exports now leading market spoke near Philadelphia. I think production has been increasing in the region. In fact, administering company MPLX's CEO Gary Heminger recently said with incremental ethane takeaway projects and the projected completion of a regional cracker facility, we anticipate reaching full utilization of our existing facilities. In other words, we need more infrastructure and companies like Shell need more elasticity in the supply chain in order to maximize the benefit of ethane. 39:48 - 40:41 Steven Hedrick: We would propose that the corridors naturally created by the Ohio and Kunal rivers be utilized as a platform for a substantial pipe system that will support the distribution of key raw material and intermediate constituents, including but not limited to, methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, and chlorine all of which are significant building blocks to the petrochemical industry and hence our society. We therefore must add substantial underground storage to the highest value of broadly used raw materials, specifically ethane, ethylene and propane and butane if we're able to create a built for purpose Appalachian storage hub. This can be safely and efficiently done and naturally occurring underground caverns in depleted natural gas extraction points, or even in depleted salt domes. In fact, the brightest minds in geological formations are currently studying the best locations for the hub. 1:34:03 - 1:35:40 Sen Joe Manchin: So I've come to the conclusion of this, the only way that we're ever going to is follow the dollars, the tax credits, extenders. They've been pouring more and more tax credits and extenders into renewables. And the only thing I'm going to say if that's the policy direction, and we can't collectively stop some of this other thing, when you have an administration desire to do something as they've done, we could at least say this, it makes all the sense in the world, if you're going to use these tax extenders, they call them tax extenders, they're credits, they give them credits if they do certain things in certain fields. So for moving to solar, or hydro, or wind and all this, those credits should only be used in a germane energy, that's where the losses were. So if the losses came from areas such as West Virginia and such as southwest Virginia, and such as Kentucky, those credits have to be used there. It makes all the sense in the world. We're gonna do every -- I'm gonna do everything I can just to shut the system down the next time, because trust me, they love tax credits. The wind people ain't letting tax credits go, solar'snot letting tax credits go. So I'm saying how do you argue against at least using the credits if you're going to get them? We'll build the best windmills, Danny. Our guys can build windmills. We can build solar, we can build anything you want. Just give us a chance. And that's what I am most upset about is no plan. There was no plan for a major policy shift in energy. And that's what we've got to correct I think, as quickly as possible to give us all a chance to survive in this tough area. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD245: New Year, Same Congress

16 januari 2022 | 91 min

Much media attention has been rightfully aimed at the recent failures of Congress, but there was, in fact, lawmaking happening at the end of 2021. In this episode, learn about some laws that didn't get much attention, including a law that solves a real problem and a few laws designed to economically punish China. We also take a look at what is happening in Congress as we start 2022 and look for opportunities for effective activism as we enter this Congressional election year. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Please take our ! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : January 6: The Capitol Riot : American Rescue Plan : FirstNet Empowers AT&T : Fast Tracking Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority) NDAA 2022 Jamie Dupree. Dec 9, 2021. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Huawui Sanctions Alessandro Civati. Jan 10, 2022. LinkedIn. Craig S. Smith. Sept 29, 2021. IEEE Spectrum. Federal Communications Commission. Mar 12, 2021. Hadlee Simons. Sept 15, 2020. Android Authority. Julian E. Barnes and Adam Satariano. Mar 17, 2019. The New York Times. Build Back Better is Dead Joe Manchin. Dec 19, 2021. Fox News. Jamie Dupree. Dec 3, 2021. Regular Order. 2022 Spending Department of Homeland Security. Paul Kane. Jan 12, 2022. The Washington Post. Voting Rights and Election Reform Cristina Marcos. Jan 13, 2022. The Hill. Zachary B. Wolf. May 19, 2021. CNN. The Filibuster Lindsay Wise. Jan 10, 2022. The Wall Street Journal. Tim Lau. Apr 26, 2021. Brennan Center for Justice. Sarah A. Binder. Apr 22, 2010. Brookings. The Electoral Count Act Miles Parks. Jan 8, 2022. NPR. Laws and Resolutions Sponsor: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 16, 2021 Sponsor: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 10, 2021 Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 27, 2021 Sponsor: Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 22, 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 23, 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) Status: Signed into law by the President on Nov 11, 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law by the President on Dec 3, 2021 Tax credits for COVID For the COVID emergency declared on March 13, 2020 “and for any subsequent major disaster declarations that supercedes such emergency declaration”, FEMA funds “shall” be paid for 100% of disaster-related funeral expenses. For 2021, eligible taxpayers can get up to 50% of up to $8,000 in childcare costs (capped at $16,000 for multiple children under the age of 12) reimbursed via a refundable tax credit. The credit phases out for families with income higher than $400,000 per year. Allows self employed individuals to receive a tax credit for sick day related to COVID-19 from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, including getting tested, quarantining, illness, and getting the vaccine. The number of days is capped at 10 and its capped at $200 per day. (=$2,000) Allows self employed individuals to receive a refundable tax credit for family leave for COVID-19 testing, illness, or vaccines. It’s capped at 60 days and $200 per day (=$12,000) Bills Sponsor: Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) Sponsor: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Sponsor: Rep. Donald Beyer (D-VA) Audio sources Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Jan 13, 2022. C-SPAN. Sen. Krysten Sinema: I rise at a challenging divisive time for our nation. For years, America's politics have spiraled steadily downward into increasingly bitter tribal partisanship and our democracy has been strained. While that may sound abstract, it is a problem that hurts Americans in real, tangible ways. These deepening divisions hurt our ability to work together to create new job opportunities, protect the health and safety of our communities and country and to ensure everyday families get ahead. Our country's divisions have now fueled efforts in several states that will make it more difficult for Americans to vote and undermine faith that all Americans should have in our elections in our democracy. These state laws have no place in a nation whose government is formed by free, fair and open elections. I share the concerns of civil rights advocates and others I've heard from in recent months about these state laws. I strongly support those efforts to contest these laws and court and to invest significant resources into these states to better organize and stop efforts to restrict access at the ballot box. And I strongly support and will continue to vote for legislative responses to address these state laws, including the freedom to vote Act, and the John Lewis voting rights Advancement Act that the Senate is currently considering. And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that were sent the underlying disease of division infecting our country. The debate over the Senate 60 vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. There is no need for me to restate my long standing support for the 60 vote threshold to pass legislation. There's no need for me to restate its role protecting our country from wild reversals and federal policy. Eliminating the 60 vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come. Our mandate, it seems evident to me work together and get stuff done for America. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD244: Keeping Ukraine

20 december 2021 | 119 min

Since the beginning of December, news outlets around the world have been covering a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. In this episode, get the full back story on the civil war that has been raging in Ukraine since 2014, learn what role our government has played in the conflict, and hear Victoria Nuland - one of the highest ranking officials in the Biden administration's State Department - testify to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about the Biden administration's plans if Russia decides to use its military to invade Ukraine. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : Lights Out: What Happened in Texas? : Target Belarus : Impeachment: The Evidence : National Endowment for Democracy : Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE : Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran : Ukraine Aid Bill : What Do We Want In Ukraine? : Let’s Gut the STOCK Act Articles, Documents, and Websites Insider. TurkStream. Western Balkans Investment Framework. Amber Infrastructure Group. Three Seas. Three Seas. State Property Fund of Ukraine. State Property Fund of Ukraine. State Property Fund of Ukraine. Stephanie. December 14, 2021. News in 24. Kenny Stancil. December 13, 2021. Common Dreams. The Kremlin. December 7, 2021. Maxine Joselow and Alexandra Ellerbeck. December 6, 2021. The Washington Post. Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies. November 23, 2021. Consortium News. International Monetary Fund (IMF). November 22, 2021. Nathan Rott. November 17, 2021. NPR. Anatol Lieven. November 15, 2021. The Nation. John Vandiver and Alison Bath. November 12, 2021. Military.com Andrew E. Kramer. November 3, 2021. The New York Times. Anton Troianovski and Julian E. Barnes. November 2, 2021. The New York Times. Anton Troianovski and David E. Sanger. October 31, 2021. The New York Times. David E. Sanger. October 25, 2021. The New York Times. Artin DerSimonian. October 19, 2021. Responsible Statecraft. Andrew E. Kramer. October 18, 2021. The New York Times. Mark Episkopos. October 16, 2021. The National Interest. Reuters. September 10, 2021. Antony Blinken. August 20, 2021. U.S. Department of State.](https://www.state.gov/imposition-of-sanctions-in-connection-with-nord-stream-2/) Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. July 1, 2021. Congressional Research Service. Henrik B. L. Larsen. June 8, 2021. War on the Rocks. NATO. April 26, 2021. David E. Sanger and Andrew E. Kramer. April 15, 2021. The New York Times. The White House. April 15, 2021. The White House. April 15, 2021. Reutuers. April 13, 2021. Vladimir Isachenkov. April 9, 2021. AP News. January 20, 2021. Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda. January 12, 2021. The Bulletin. Andrew Feinberg. January 9, 2021. The Independent. David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Julian E. Barnes. January 2, 2021. The New York Times. David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Eric Schmitt. December 14, 2020. The New York Times. Mark Episkopos. November 11, 2020. The National Interest. Government Accountability Office. October 21, 2020. Anthony B. Cavender, Thomas A. Campbell, Dan LeFort, Paul S. Marston. December 23, 2015. Pillsbury Law. Robert Parry. July 15, 2015. Truthout. Robert Parry. March 19, 2015. Consortium News. February 12, 2015. Financial Times. NATO. May 8, 2014. Seumas Milne. April 30, 2014. The Guardian. David Morrison. Updated May 9, 2014. HuffPost. US Energy Information Administration. March 15, 2014. Energy Central. Robert Parry. February 27, 2014. Common Dreams. February 7, 2014. BBC News. Adam Taylor. December 16, 2013. Insider. Brian Whelan. December 16, 2013. Channel 4 News. Guardian staff and agencies. December 15, 2013. The Guardian. International Monetary Fund (IMF). October 31, 2013. Carl Gershman. September 26, 2013. The Washington Post. Amanda Winkler. November 14, 2011. The Christian Post. Images Bills Sponsor: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL] Audio Sources December 8, 2021 President Biden briefly stopped and spoke with reporters as he departed the White House for an event in Kansas City, Missouri. He began by addressing the Omicron variant, saying that the Pfizer vaccine is showing encouraging results against the COVID-19 variant. When asked about Russian President Putin and Ukraine, President Biden said if Putin were to invade Ukraine, there “will be severe consequences.” He went on to say that putting U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine is currently “not in the cards.” close Report Video Issue Clips Biden: We hope by Friday, we're going to be able to say and announce to you that we're having meetings at a higher level, not just with us, but with at least four of our major NATO allies and Russia to discuss the future of Russia's concerns relative to NATO writ large. And whether or not we can work out any accommodations as it relates to bringing down the temperature along the eastern front. Biden: We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO allies if they were to attack under Article Five, it's a sacred obligation. That obligation does not extend to NATO, I mean to Ukraine, but it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries were willing to do as well. But the idea of the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now. Biden: Meeting with Putin. I was very straightforward. There were no minced words. It was polite, but I made it very clear, if in fact, he invades Ukraine, there will be severe consequences, severe consequences. Economic consequences, like none he's ever seen or ever had been seen in terms of ease and flows. He knows his immediate response was he understood that and I indicated I knew he would respond. But beyond that, if in fact, we would probably also be required to reinforce our presence in NATO countries to reassure particularly those on the Eastern Front. In addition to that, I made it clear that we would provide the defensive capability to the Ukrainians as well. December 7, 2021 Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden’s earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia’s use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline 00:20 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): As we meet here today Russia is engaged in one of the most significant troop buildups that we have seen along Ukraine's border. To nyone paying attention, this looks like more than posturing, more than attention seeking. The Kremlin's actions clearly pose a real threat of war. 00:40 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I want to be crystal clear to those listening to this hearing in Moscow, Kiev and other capitals around the world. A Russian invasion will trigger devastating economic sanctions the likes of which we have never seen before. 00:59 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I proposed a suite of options last month in an amendment to the NDA. The Russian banking sector would be wiped out, sovereign debt would be blocked, Russia would be removed from the Swift payment system, sectoral sanctions would cripple the Russian economy. Putin himself as well as his inner circle would lose access to bank accounts in the West. Russia would effectively be cut off and isolated from the international economic system. Let me be clear, these are not run of the mill sanctions. What is being discussed is at the maximum end of the spectrum, or as I have called it the mother of all sanctions, and I hope that we can come together in a bipartisan way to find a legislative path forward soon, so that we can achieve that. 1:51 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): If Putin invades Ukraine the implications will be devastating for the Russian economy but also for the Russian people. 2:24 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): But is the Kremlin really ready to face a bloody, persistent and drawn out insurgency? How many body bags is Putin willing to accept? 6:03 Sen James Risch (R-ID): This is a clearly clearly bipartisan matter. 7:40 Victoria Nuland: First, let me review what we are seeing. Over the past six weeks, Russia has stepped up planning for potential further military action in Ukraine, positioning close to 100,000 troops around Ukraine's eastern and northern borders and from the south via the Crimean peninsula. Russian plans and positioning of assets also include the means to destabilize Ukraine from within, and an aggressive information operation and an attempt to undermine Ukrainian stability and social cohesion and to pin the blame for any potential escalation on Kiev, and on NATO nations including the United States. Russia's military and intelligence services are continuing to develop the capability to act decisively in Ukraine when ordered to do so, potentially in early 2022. The intended force, if fully mobilized, would be twice the size of what we saw last spring, including approximately 100 battalion tactical groups, or nearly all of Russia's ready ground forces based west of the Urals. We don't know whether President Putin has made a decision to attack Ukraine or to overthrow its government. But we do know he's building the capacity to do so. 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone 12:00 Victoria Nuland: Diplomacy remains the best route to settle the conflict in Donbas and address any other problems or grievances. The Minsk agreements offer the best basis for negotiations and the US is prepared to support a revived effort if the parties welcome that. 15:16 Victoria Nuland: You might have seen a press conference today that commission Chairwoman van der Laan gave in Brussels in which she made absolutely clear that the EU would also join in very consequential economic measures of the kind that they have not employed before. 23:26 Victoria Nuland: It's also important, I think, for President Putin to understand as the President conveyed to him today, that this will be different than it was in 2014. If he goes in you will recall then that our sanctions escalated somewhat gradually as he didn't stop moving. This time the intent is to make clear that the initial sanctions in response to any further aggressive moves in Ukraine will be extremely significant and isolating for Russia and for Russian business and for the Russian people. 24:51 Victoria Nuland: As you know, energy is the cash cow that enables these kinds of military deployments. So Putin needs the energy to flow as as much as the consumers need it. But more broadly, we have been counseling Europe for almost a decade now to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, including our opposition to Nord Stream 2 and our opposition to Nord Stream 1 and our opposition to to TurkStream and TurkStream 2 and to have come to find alternative sources of hydrocarbons but also to continue their efforts to go green and end their dependencies. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. 32:22 Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): Senator Portman and I offered an amendment to this year's NDAA in that vein to increase military assistance and raise the amount of assistance that could go to lethal weapons. 33:21 Victoria Nuland: But we will not be shy about coming to you as we as we need support and the bipartisan spirit here is really gratifying. 34:08 Victoria Nuland: At the NATO ministerial last week, there was a commitment among allies that we needed more advice and more options from our NATO military authorities with regard to the consequences of any move by Russia deeper into Ukraine and what that would mean for the eastern edge of the alliance and what it would mean about our need to be more forward deployed in the east. 34:44 Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): Belarus now that it is seems to be totally within Russia's control also presents another front for the potential for Russia to invade Ukraine. Can you speak to whether we view what's happening in Belarus in that way? I know that Ukrainians view it that way because we heard that when we were in Halifax for the international security forum and met with some Ukrainian officials. Victoria Nuland: Well, as as you know, Senator, the situation in Belarus is just tragic and really concerning in many, many ways, which is why the administration along with the European Union in a multilateral way increased sanctions just last week, including blocking the sale to us or to Europe of one of the great sources of Lukashenko has money potash, etc, and sanction some dozens more Belarusians responsible for the violence and intimidation there and particularly now for the weaponization of migrants pushing you know, accepting them from third countries and then pushing them against the EU's border in a very cynical and dangerous way. But I think you're talking about the potential as Lukashenko becomes more and more dependent on the Kremlin and gives up more and more of Belarus is sovereignty, something that he told his people he would never do that Russia could actually use Belarusian territory to march on Ukraine and or mask, its forces as Belarusian forces. All of those -- Those are both things that that we are watching, and it was particularly concerning to see President Lukashenko would make a change in his own posture with regard to Crimea. He had long declined to recognize Russia Russia's claim on Crimea, but he changed tack a week ago which is concerning. 39:08 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): If there's one thing that Vladimir Putin aught to understand is how unified we are. I mean, there are many things that divide us politically in this country. But when it comes to pushing back on Russian aggression, supporting countries like Ukraine that are trying to develop their freedom, free themselves from their legacy of corruption from their former involvement with the Soviet Union, we are very strongly united. 39:56 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): What we impose on them and how and how harmful it would be to Russia, you know, unfortunately to Russian people. 40:36 Victoria Nuland: What we're talking about would amount to essentially isolating Russia completely from the global financial system with all of the fallout that that would entail for Russian business, for the Russian people, for their ability to, to work and travel and trade. 41:41 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made, and if at all possible, prevent the Nord Stream 2 from ever being completed. Is that something that is being discussed with allies is that something's being contemplated? Victoria Nuland: Absolutely. And as if, as you recall from the July U.S.-German statement that was very much in that statement that if that any moves, Russian aggression against Ukraine would have a direct impact on the pipeline, and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So again, direct impact is one thing, but I'm literally talking about rolling back the pipeline. Loosely define that but I mean, taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational. Victoria Nuland: I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine, our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but from ending it permanently. 44:28 Victoria Nuland: I think we can, and I know this is close to your heart as well, need to do better in our Global Engagement Center and in the way we speak to audiences around the world and particularly on these kinds of subjects. 55:04 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): But something different has happened in that country since what has been referred to as the Revolution of Dignity. I got the chance to be there on the Maidan during the midst of that revolution with you and Senator McCain. 58:56 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): The Three Seas Initiative is a really important initiative linking essentially the ring of countries that are either former republics or satellite states of the Soviet Union together. They're begging for US participation in their projects necessary to make them more energy independent of Russia. Isn't this an opportunity for the United States to step up and take some of these customers away from Russia's gas station? Victoria Nuland: Absolutely, as we have been doing with our support for more LNG terminals around Europe for many years, as we are doing now in our support for, you know, green alternatives, not just in the United States, but in Europe as well. And many, many US companies are involved with that. But that particular belt of three C's countries is absolutely crucial, as you've said. 1:11:19 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): I visited to Maidan in 2014. The tires were still smoldering and the Revolution of Dignity changed everything. You know, Ukraine decided to turn to us and to the West, and to freedom and democracy. And it was a momentous decision. They chose to stand with us. And now it's our turn to stand with them. And we've done that over the years. I mean, if you look at what happened with regard to the Ukraine security assistance initiative, which I co authored. Over the past six years, the United States has transferred defense articles, conducted training with Ukrainian military. We have been very engaged. 1:12:05 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): This week we have the NDAA likely to be voted on and likely it will include an increase in that lethal defensive funding. 1:12:14 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): What defensive weapons has Ukraine ask for and what is the State Department willing to provide them under an expedited process? 1:18:44 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): My concern is this: if the United States and the West's response to a military invasion is sanctions, but no military response, obviously, we're providing military aid to Ukraine. And we've been generous in that way. But if we are not willing to help a Ukrainian military, that's 50,000 people matched up against Russia, I would think that China would conclude, boy, the West sure, I'm going to come to the aid of Taiwan, if we were to do something on Taiwan. Because China would conclude, we're much more militarily powerful than Russia is. And the status questions about Taiwan and sovereignty are a little bit murkier than those about Ukraine. And there's no NATO in the Indo Pacific, we have allies in the Indo Pacific but we don't have a NATO with a charter, with a self defense article. I think China would determine, if the West responds to a military invasion went as far as sanctions but no further, that the United States and other nations would be extremely unlikely to use military force to counter a military invasion of Taiwan. And I think Taiwan would likely conclude the same thing. So I'm very concerned about that. And I wonder, is that a fair concern that I have about how the Chinese and the Taiwanese would view the West's unwillingness to provide more significant military support to stop an invasion by Russia? Is my concern a fair one? Or is my concern overwrought? Victoria Nuland: Senator, in this setting, I would simply say that this is a moment of testing. And I believe that both autocrats around the world and our friends around the world will watch extremely carefully what we do, and it will have implications for generations. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): And those and those implications could go far beyond Ukraine. Victoria Nuland: They could go well beyond Europe. Yes. 1:22:00 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Then I would imagine that he's already been publicly messaging what his asks are. The first is that we would pull back NATO forces from anywhere near their western border. The second is to completely rule out the admission probably not just of Ukraine, but Georgia as a member of NATO. And the third is to stop arming Ukraine. Of those three conditions that he's publicly messaged already, would the United States agreed to any of those three? Victoria Nuland: All of those would be unacceptable. 1:41:11 Victoria Nuland: And in fact you could argue that in the Donbas he did take control of some 40% of Ukraine's coal reserves which were a major energy input 1:42:04 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I hope the one thing that anyone in the world who is watching this hearing today takes away is that even on some of the most contentious issues of the day, on this one, there is overwhelming, broad, bipartisan support for Ukraine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for its territorial integrity, there is overwhelming bipartisan support for swift and robust action. And after conversations with some of the members of the committee, I look to galvanize that in some tangible way legislatively as we wait for the days ahead as to what may or may not happen. August 31, 2021 Secretary Lloyd Austin: As you know sir, President Biden has approved a new $60 million security assistance package including Javelin anti-armor systems and more to enable Ukraine to better defend itself against Russian aggression. Secretary Lloyd Austin: Now this department is committed to strengthening our Strategic Defense Partnership. The US Ukraine strategic defense framework that Minister Tehran and I will sign today enhances our cooperation and advances our shared priorities, such as ensuring that our bilateral security cooperation continues to help Ukraine countering Russian aggression and implementing defense and defense industry reforms in support of Ukraine's NATO membership aspirations, and deepening our cooperation in such areas as Black Sea security, cyber defense and intel sharing. June 30, 2021 Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual call-in question and answer session with citizens from around the country. During this 70-minute portion, he answered questions on relations with Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States, reiterating that whatever sanctions are imposed against Russia, his country’s economy will prevail. Clips Putin: I have already said that it is impossible and it makes no sense to try to restore the Soviet Union by a number of reasons and looking at the demographic processes in a number of former Soviet republic, so it's unreasonable effort to do because we can face a lot of social problems that will be possible to resolve and some issues like the ethnic groups, in various regions, but what should we do about Russia itself without the geopolitical realities and about our internal development? Putin: Why is Ukraine not on the list of countries who are Russia's adversaries? Another question: are you going to meet with Zelensky? Well, why Ukriane is not on the list of adversaries? That's because I do not think that the Ukrainian people are our adversaries. I said it many times and I will say it again. The Ukrainians and Russians, that's one people, one nation. Putin: What I'm worried about is a fundamental thing. They are trying to open up military bases near or inside Ukraine. Making the territory of Ukraine, the territory that's close on the border with Russia a military platform for other countries is a threat to the security of Russia. And this is what worries us. This is what we have to think about. January 23, 2018 Clips 00:06:15 Joe Biden: They cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin’s judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest. 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there’s no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn’t be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What’s an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? 00:24:30 Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. January 12, 2017 00:20:15 Sen. McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We’ve not only put America first, but we’ve done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. It’s the global striking power of America’s armed forces that must deter or thwart their ambitions. Too many Americans, too many Americans seem to have forgotten this in recent years. Too many have forgotten that our world order is not self-sustaining. Too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. In short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters—having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and, at times, using it. Fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that America is weak and distracted, and that has only emboldened our adversaries to challenge the current world order. February 6, 2014. Jen Psaki, State Department Spokesperson 0:19 Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? February 4, 2014 Nuland: Good. So I don’t think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Pyatt: Yeah, I mean I guess, in terms of him not going into the government, just sort of letting him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of, sort of, the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this. Nuland: I think Yatz [Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy with the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy. What he needs is Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] And Tyahnybok On the outside, he needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] Going in he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk it’s just not gonna work. Pyatt: We want to get someone out here with and international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych. We’ll probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things fall into place. Nuland: So on that piece, Jeff, I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me saying “you need Biden,” and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deeds to stick, Biden’s willing. Pyatt Great. C-SPAN December 19, 2013. 00:16:45 McCain: If Ukraine’s political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend—from holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health and sustainable development. Decisions such as these are for Ukrainians to make—no one else—and if they request our assistance, we should provide it where possible. Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensable for Ukraine’s future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. C-SPAN April 20, 1994 Arthur Dunkel, Director General of the UN 26:00:00 Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the centrally planned world; the centrally planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension – political tension and even worse than that.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD243: Target Nicaragua

6 december 2021 | 128 min

In mid-November, following the re-election of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Congress passed and President Biden signed the RENACER Act, which escalated an ongoing economic war against President Daniel Ortega. In this episode learn about what the RENACER Act does as we examine the situation in Nicaragua and find out and why Daniel Ortega has a target on his back. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Essential Background Episodes : The World Trade Organization: COOL? : Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE : National Endowment for Democracy : Combating China Rabbit Hole Episodes : Why Attack Syria? : What Do We Want In Ukraine? : Regime Change (Syria) : Bombing Libya : Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran : The Illegal Bombing of Syria : Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress : A Coup for Capitalism : The “Democracies” Of Elliott Abrams : The Brink of the Iran War : Social Media Censorship : Targets of the Free Marketeers : Target Belarus U.S.-Nicaragua Relations Maureen Taft-Morales. November 4, 2021. Congressional Research Service. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. September 14, 2021. William I. Robinson. August 19, 2021. North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) Clare Ribando Seelke. March 17, 2008. Congressional Research Service. Maureen Taft-Morales. April 19, 2007. Congressional Research Service. IMF Staff. May 16, 2006. The International Monetary Fund. Author’s Name Redacted. May 16, 1997. Congressional Research Service. Edgar Chamorro. January 9, 1986. The New York Times. Fred Hiatt, Joanne Omang, Michael Getler and Don Oberdorfer. April 7, 1984. The Washington Post. Nicaragua Relationships to Russia and China 100% Noticias. September 9, 2021. Havana Times. July 19, 2021. TASS: Russian News Agency. Frida Ghitis. June 8, 2017. “A Russian Satellite-Tracking Facility in Nicaragua Raises Echoes of the Cold War.” World Politics Review. Cristina Silva. May 22, 2017. Newsweek. Carrie Kahn. November 17, 2016. NPR Morning Edition. John Otis. June 4, 2015. The Wall Street Journal. Matthew Miller. May 4, 2014. Reuters. 2021 Sanctions November 19, 2021. U.S. Department of the Treasury. November 15, 2021. Antony Blinken. November 15, 2021. U.S. Department of State. Ned Price. August 6, 2021. U.S. Department of State. Antony Blinken. July 12, 2021. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of the Treasury. June 9, 2021. Minimum-Wage.org 2021 Nicaraguan Elections November 10, 2021. Monique Beals. November 7, 2021. The Hill. Meta (formerly Facebook). November 1, 2021. Meta (formerly Facebook). November 1, 2021. Nahal Toosi. October 26, 2021. Politico. Antony Blinken. October 22, 2021. U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. Carlos Dada. October 6, 2021. El Faro. Kai M. Thaler and Ryan C. Berg. August 24, 2021. The Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. December 11, 2020. The Associated Press. Foreign Agent Law Guy José Bendaña-Guerrero. May 2, 2021. Marca Sur. December 22, 2020. LAND Staff. October 29, 2020. Latin America News Dispatch (LAND). Associated Press. October 15, 2020. ABC News. Oretega’s Arrested Opponents World Economic Forum. Academia.edu The Atlantic Council. Jared Genser, Brian Tronic, Stephanie Herrmann, and Michael Russ. October 28, 2021. Tom Phillips. October 22, 2021. The Guardian. September 6, 2021. Deutsche Welle (DW). Ismael López Ocampo and Mary Beth Sheridan. June 9, 2021. The Washington Post. June 7, 2021. Havana Times. June 5, 2021. Reuters. June 3, 2021. Telesur. The Guardian Staff and agencies in Managua. June 2, 2021. The Guardian. Trump Era - April 2018 Protests Paz Gómez. August 25, 2021. Mary Beth Sheridan. August 4, 2019. The Washington Post. U.S. Department of the Treasury. April 17, 2019. Samantha Sultoon. November 29, 2018. New Atlanticist Blog from the Atlantic Council. November 27, 2018. Federal Register Vol. 83 No. 230. Rocio Cara Labrador. November 26, 2018. Council of Foreign Relations. Rafael Bernal. November 01, 2018. The Hill. Mabel Calero. July 26, 2018. Max Blumenthal. June 19, 2018. Foreign “Assistance” to Nicaragua Associated Press. August 26, 2021. U.S. News and World Report. William I. Robinson. August 20, 2021. North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) Elliott Abrams. June 9, 2021. Council on Foreign Relations. Ben Norton. June 1, 2021. John Perry. August 4, 2020. Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua [RFTOP No: 72052420R00004] March-April 2020. USAID OIG Latin America and Caribbean Regional Office. October 24, 2019. USAID. IMF Western Hemisphere Department Staff. June 27, 2017. The International Monetary Fund. Richard Falk. February 21, 2012. Al Jazeera. Laws Sponsor: Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) Passed by Voice Vote in the Senate Law Outline "Congress unequivocally condemns the politically motivated and unlawful detention of presidential candidates Cristiana Chamorro, Arturo Cruz, Felix Maradiaga, and Juan Sebastian Chamorro." "Congress unequivocally condemns the passage of the Foreign Agents Regulation Law, the Special Cybercrimes Law, the Self Determination Law, and the Consumer Protection Law by the National Assembly of Nicaragua..." "The President should review" the continued participation of Nicaragua in the agreement. The authority listed is Article 21.2 of the agreement that says, "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed... to preclude a Party from applying measures that it considers necessary for the fulfillment of its obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of international peace or security, or the protection of its own essential security interests." President Trump issued an Executive Order on November 27, 2018 that said that the response to the protests that began on April 18, 2018 "and the Ortega regime's systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law, its use of indiscriminate violence and repressive tactics against civilians, as well as its corruption leading to the destabilization of Nicaragua's economy constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." Directs the United States Executive Director at the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to "increase scrutiny of any loan or financial or technical assistance provided for a project in Nicaragua" and "to ensure" that the loan or assistance is administered through an entity with full independence from the Government of Nicaragua. The Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury, "in consultation" with the intelligence community, "shall develop and implement a coordinated strategy" for implementing targeted sanctions in order to "facilitate the necessary conditions for free, fair, and transparent elections in Nicaragua." Targets sanctions specifically at... Officials in the government of President Daniel Ortega Family members of Daniel Ortega High ranking members of the National Nicaraguan Police Members of the Supreme Electoral Council of Nicaragua Officials of the Central Bank of Nicaragua Party members and elected officials from the Sandinista National Liberation Front and their family members Businesses that conduct "corrupt" financial transactions with officials in the government of President Daniel Ortega, his party, or his family. The sanctions are authorized by the 2018 law (outlined below) against "any foreign person" who, on or after April 18, 2018... Used violence "or conduct" that "constitutes a serious abuse" against protestors Taken "actions or policies" that undermine "democratic processes or institutions" Any current or former government official that used "private or public assets for personal gain or political purposes" Any current or former government official involved in corruption related to government contracts Any current or former government official involved in bribery Any current or former government official that transferred the proceeds of corruption Arrested or prosecuted a person disseminating information to the public The sanctions include... Asset blocking of "all property and interests in property" if they are in the United States, come within the United States, or come within the possession or control of a "United States person." Exclusion from the United States and revocation of visas and other documents. Anyone who "violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation" of sanctions can be hit with a civil penalty of a $250,000 maximum fine or up to twice the amount of sanctions violating transaction and/or a criminal penalty of up to $1 million or up to 20 years in prison. Requires the Secretary of State to coordinate with other countries - specifically Canada, members of the European Union, and governments in Latin America and the Caribbean - to impose the sanctions together "in order to advance democratic elections in Nicaragua." Adds Nicaragua to an annual report that gets submitted to Congress. The people identified in the report who are accused of corruption in regards to government contracts, bribery, extortion, money laundering, or "violence, harassment, or intimidation directed at governmental or non governmental corruption investigators" will have their visas revoked and be prohibited from entering the United States. The Department of State - working with intelligence officials - will submit a classified report to Congress within 90 days about... Cooperation between the Nicaraguan military and Russian military, intelligence, security forces, law enforcement, and Russian security contractors. Cooperation between Russia and Nicaragua in telecommunications and satellites Economic cooperation, specifically in banking Threats that cooperation between Russia and Nicaragua pose to "United States national interests and national security." The Secretary of State, Administrator of USAID and the CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media will submit a report to Congress listing all media "directly or indirectly owned or controlled by President Daniel Ortega, members of the Ortega family, or known allies of the Ortega government" and it will access the extent to which Voice of America is reaching the Nicaraguan people. Renames the "Nicaraguan Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018" the "Nicaragua Investment and Conditionality Act of 2018" or "NICA Act" Signed into law on December 20, 2018 Sponsor: Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Law Outline Congress wanted the Catholic Church of Nicaragua to negotiate for early elections on behalf of "civil society", the student movement, private sector, and the "political opposition" Congress did like that the Government of Nicaragua was refusing to negotiate Forces the Treasury Secretary to instruct our representatives at the World Bank Group and Inter-American Development Bank to oppose "any loan or financial or technical assistance to the Government of Nicaragua for a project in Nicaragua." We can support loans "to address basic human needs" or "promote democracy in Nicaragua" Authorizes sanctions against "any foreign person" who, on or after April 18, 2018... Used violence "or conduct" that "constitutes a serious abuse" against protestors Taken "actions or policies" that undermine "democratic processes or institutions" Any current or former government official that used "private or public assets for personal gain or political purposes" Any current or former government official involved in corruption related to government contracts Any current or former government official involved in bribery Any current or former government official that transferred the proceeds of corruption Arrested or prosecuted a person disseminating information to the public The sanctions include... Asset blocking of "all property and interests in property" if they are in the United States, come within the United States, or come within the possession or control of a "United States person." Exclusion from the United States and revocation of visas and other documents. Punishes anyone who "violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation" of sanctions with a civil penalty up to a $250,000 fine or up to twice the amount of sanctions violating transaction and/or a criminal penalty of up to $1 million or up to 20 years in prison. The asset blocking sanctions do not authorize the blocking of goods imports. Allows the President to waive the travel restrictions and sanctions. The sanctions authorized by this law expire on December 31, 2023. Audio Sources November 10, 2021 Moderator: I present Paul Pumphrey from Friends of the Congo. Paul Pumphrey: Here in Nicaragua, I saw a free and fair election. I talked to many people who were not a part of the Sandinistas party. And yet they themselves said they were willing to accept whatever result happened in the election. Moderator: Next we have Craig Pasta Jardula who is a journalist based in the United States. Craig Pasta Jardula: Mainly, I want to talk about the process, meaning the chain of custody, because that's something that we really saw that was great here in Nicaragua, it made this election a home run. The chain of custody is very strong here, including the fact that in Nicaragua, we have something that is awesome that a lot of countries need to adopt, which is where the vote is cast, it is counted, that ensures a strong chain of custody. Moderator: Next is Rick Cohn from Friends of Latin America. Rick Cohn: I want to speak just a little bit though a group of 11 of us went to Bilwi on the Caribbean coast. And in the United States, one of the things they'll use to say this election is fake, is that a high percentage of people voted, and a high percentage of people voted for the FSLN. And that can't happen, because American politicians that would never happen. Well, so I want to say something about why the voters told us they were voting. They told us that basically, they had two Category Four and Category Five hurricanes last year, and the government came and saved their lives, saved many, many lives. And, you know, people have trust in that government. And then the government came in and made sure the electric was up. In Puerto Rico from a year earlier, electric still isn't isn't working, because they, you know, are making money selling electric, but it still doesn't work. They told us they had new roofs put on almost immediately they were delivered. They told us that the schools were rebuilt. All of the schools were in good condition. Oh, the schools and some of them have new buildings. So we had a situation where they were very happy with the performance of the government. And that is why -- oh, they also told us they had one kilometer of road before the FSLN came into power from the neoliberal period, now they have 500 kilometers. And with 70 more kilometers, they'll be able to drive from all the way to Managua, which they've never been able to do in history. So they told us these things. And the FSLN party received the highest percentage of votes, but that's not strange, because they really support the government. They received 86.7% of the vote. You know, there's no way that's made up - it's not fake. It's where they're at. It is certainly the biggest deficiency in democracy in Nicaragua is the interference that there is so much interference from the US government and the media, and the censorship and the lies that they tell. That's the interference that's occurring in this election. Rick Cohn: Corporate media like Facebook, well, all of the corporate media including Facebook and Twitter, but social media, are actually just part of the US system and they're contracted to provide information back and forth, they're actually an aspect of the government and they close 1000s of people's accounts, who are people, and I met some of them, they're actual people, and they close their accounts. And they weren't, you know, anyone who was saying anything other than the fact that they may have been supporting the Nicaraguan people or opposed to the the sanctions on Nicaragua. September 21, 2021 , *Hearing not on C-SPAN Witnesses: Emily Mendrala Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Laure Chinchilla Former President of Costa Rica Co-Chair at The Inter-American Dialogue Ryan Berg, PhD Senior Fellow in the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Oct. 2018 - Apr. 2021: Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Apr. 2018 - Oct. 2018: Research Consultant at The World Bank July 2014 - Oct 2014: US State Department negotiator at the Organization of American States (OAS) 2009: Intern for Paul Ryan Berta Valle Wife of Felix Maradiaga Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ): The regime has rounded up nearly every potential challenger to Ortega and has not even tried to hide these arrests and forced disappearances under the veneer of legality. 05:42 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ): Having written the NICA Act with Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), I am frustrated that the International Monetary Fund recently provided $350 million to the regime. The IMF should not take Ortega's us word for it that these funds will be used to address the COVID pandemic. 06:53 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ): We should also begin preparing a number of severe diplomatic consequences, assuming Nicaragua's election in November becomes a coronation for Ortega. Nicaragua should be suspended under the International Democratic Charter on November 8, and its participation under the Central America Free Trade Agreement should be reconsidered. 10:39 Rep. Mark Green (R-TN): On November 7 a political farce will be held, claiming to resemble elections. No one should be fooled about the outcome -- any hope of unseating the socialist dictatorship is sitting inside of Ortega's prisons. 13:56 *Emily Mendrala: As you are well aware, the Ortega-Murillo government has carried out a ruthless crackdown over the past several months, canceling the registration of opposition parties, incarcerating journalists, opposition leaders, potential presidential candidates, students, private sector leaders and others who defend free and fair elections, attacking the free press, closing long standing NGOs that provide humanitarian and medical assistance to Nicaraguans in need. 15:06 Emily Mendrala: In the face of sham elections in Nicaragua, we and our international partners must continue to denounce and push back against the Ortega-Murillo government's anti-democratic rule as well as its use of Russian-inspired laws to carry out repression. 17:56 Emily Mendrala: Through USAID we continue to support Nicaraguan civil society, independent media and human rights defenders. Our continued support assures Nicaraguans that the outside world has not forgotten them. 19:06 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ): Are we using our voice? Is the administration using its voice and vote with international financial institution to oppose loans and other financial assistance to Ortega? Because I have to tell you, it's very upsetting to me that we do all this work here. We asked the administration to put sanctions on different people. And yet the IMF, which we probably contribute the largest amount of money, or if not, one of the largest amounts of money, they seem to just ignore what's going on in Nicaragua. And it has to -- I intend to write a letter to the IMF. And hopefully we'll have them before this committee, because this is not acceptable. 20:22 Emily Mendrala: We are using our voice and our vote and every opportunity in front of multilateral institutions to oppose lending to the Ortega-Murillo government. We will continue to use our voice, vote and influence to advocate against lending from international financial institutions to the Ortega-Murillo government and we will also continue to collaborate with international partners where appropriate: EU, Canada and others to do the same. 30:43 Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX): The upcoming November 7 elections will be neither free nor fair 1:04:30 Berta Valle: Even though Félix [Maradiaga] has dedicated his life to serving our country, the regime has charged him and others with a conspiracy to undermine national integrity. The government is alleging that Félix and others were part of a global conspiracy to use foreign resources, including from the US Agency for International Development, the International Republican Institute and the National Endowment for Democracy to harm the interests of the nation. 1:16:33 Ryan Berg: As well as November 7, I think we need to declare Nicaragua's elections illegitimate under current conditions. 1:27:16 Ryan Berg: Thank you, Congressman Green, for the question. Yes, the two countries that I would point out as extra-hemispheric actors who have have come into the hemisphere to shore up the Ortega regime are Russia and Iran. Russia, we've seen with a significant presence in Nicaragua for a while. Its increased its presence in past years, to an extent that I think should be very alarming for the US government. Not only does it have a number of port agreements with Nicaragua, and access to the Caribbean, where it can engage in anti access and area denial capabilities, potentially. But also in cyberspace. We saw recently the Russians and Nicaraguans sign a major agreement in the cyberspace, particularly to help the regime not only increase its domestic security apparatus, but to spy potentially on the opposition on our own citizens, and indeed, potentially on on other governments in Central America, depending upon the strength of the equipment transfers that we'll see in future. So they have a whole number or whole range of capabilities that they are developing within Nicaragua, that there are signals intelligence stations that are actually quite close to the US Embassy in Managua. And so that's that's Russia, Russia has an interest in shoring up this regime on the cheap. And I think Iran has approached the regime in a number of ways, most specifically, in offering partnerships to circumvent US sanctions architecture, in which it excels, because of the sanctions architecture that it has been under for so long. And we haven't seen as deep I would say, as a presence of the Iranians in Nicaragua, but it's it's there and it's also concerning. I think, in general, Congressman, part of the Ortega regime's plan for survival is to sort of recreate a situation of rivalry and enmity in Central America again, and lend a platform for major geopolitical competitors to the United States to increase their capabilities on the US doorstep and I think that's a significant aspect of this political, economic and social crisis here. 1:35:50 Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ): If the Ortega regime moves ahead was stealing this November's elections the international community must come together to impose a very steep price. November 1, 2018 John Bolton: The "Troika of Tyranny" in this hemisphere -- Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua -- has finally met its match. John Bolton: Today in this hemisphere we are also confronted once again, with the destructive forces of oppression, socialism and totalitarianism. In Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, we see the perils of poisonous ideologies left unchecked. September 25, 2007 16:50 President Daniel Ortega: The General Assembly is simply a reflection of this world where a capitalist and imperialist minority is imposing global capitalism to impoverish the world continue to enslave us all and promote apartheid against Latin American immigrants and against African immigrants in Europe. This global capitalism is one beast and it has tentacles everywhere. 25:30 President Daniel Ortega: They have to understand once and for all, that just as they have managed to profit from privatizations that have given rise to these huge multi-nationals that then set up in developing countries, they say that they are helping us. No business person provides assistance, they simply go to earn as much money as they can, they don't go to invest. Developing countries are considered to be insecure countries, and we are simply being ransacked. If we compare the volume of riches that they're extracting from our countries -- the capitalists in developed countries I'm talking about -- through their major companies, the globalized multinationals. If we can compare that wealth with what the Latin American immigrants send back to their families from the U.S. or the Asian and African families in Europe send back to their families, it is a miserable amount compared to the volume of wealth that is extracted on a daily basis by these forms of institutionalized oppression. 28:30 President Daniel Ortega: These companies are simply using cheap labor. They are benefiting from clauses in free trade agreements. I've got us free trade, why not? Free trade for societies and nations. But clearly in that system, it's the law of the jungle the strongest will impose themselves on the rest. What well the world needs is fair trade. What the world demands is really a genuine change in the capitalist, globalized, imperialist economies, that is where we need to have a change. They have to change this concept that they have of a free market. They have to change the slant of these free trade agreements. April 16, 1991 20:00 President Violetta Chamorro: My government is committed to radically reducing government intervention in the economy and the enormous bureaucratic apparatus that we have inherited. Our Congress approved a law that authorizes private banks to operate and encourages foreign investments and is studying the privatization law in order to convert government to businesses. We are rapidly advancing towards the establishment of a social market economy. Restrictions on prices and salaries must be lifted. Likewise, we have initiated a serious economic stabilization program accompanied by the corresponding tax reforms in order to discipline and improve and decrease public spending to encourage domestic production and to stimulate private domestic and foreign investment. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD242: The Offshore Drilling Police

15 november 2021 | 99 min

On October 1, 2021 an oil pipeline that was likely struck by a cargo ship's anchor leaked tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean and onto the beaches of Orange County, CA. In this episode, examine how the oil spill happened by listening to testimony provided to both the U.S. Congress and the California State Senate, and learn about the disturbing lack of policing that is taking place under the sea. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Articles and Documents Nicole Charky. April 7, 2021. Patch. Nicole Charky. March 23, 2021. Patch. U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO-21-293. Heal the Bay. June 24, 2015 . planetexperts.com Heal the Bay. August 20, 2012. Sarah S. Elkind. June 1, 2012. The Journal of American History, Volume 99, Issue 1. Tom Fowler. February 21, 2012. The Wall Street Journal. APPEL News Staff. May 10, 2011. APPEL News, Volume 4, Issue 1. Offshore Technology. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. November 23, 1970. Open Secrets Profiles Images CA State Senate: Natural Resources and Water Committee Informational Hearing Southern California Oil Spill: Preparation response, ongoing risks, and potential solutions. CA State Senate: Natural Resources and Water Committee Informational Hearing Southern California Oil Spill: Preparation response, ongoing risks, and potential solutions. GAO Analysis of Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Data, GAO-21-293. GAO-21-293. Hearings Thursday, October 28, 2021 Witnesses: Chuck Bonham Head of California Department of Fishing and Wildlife Tom Cullen Administrator of OSPR (Offshore Spill Prevention and Response) Kim Carr Mayor Pro Tem, City of Huntington Beach Brian Nowicki California Climate Policy Director at the Center for Biological Diversity Pete Stauffer Environmental Director for the Surfrider Foundation Jennifer Lucchesi State Lands Commission Clips 3:44 Senator Henry Stern: But the pipeline that runs to Amplify and Beta Offshore’s platform is the source of the oil production that runs through the pipeline in question. That pipeline is in federal jurisdiction but it brings that produced oil onshore into the state waters and eventually on state lands. 21:05 Chuck Bonham: What we now know is about four and a half miles offshore, so in federal waters, there's a pipeline that runs from one platform, which is a collection of three platforms operated by a company called Beta Offshore, owned by a company called Amplify Energy. That last platform, Ellie, has a pipeline which delivers the product 17.7 miles inland, where the pipe comes on shore just below the Queen Mary more or less, to land based infrastructure. That pipe had a rupture in it. And we now know based on visual and diver and other evidentiary efforts, that about 4000 feet of that pipeline was moved about 105 feet off of center. And in that stretch is about a 13 inch horizontal, almost like a hairline fracture. If you could imagine a bone break in a pipe, which is, I think, about 13 inches in diameter, concrete on the outside and metal on the inside. That's the likely source of the leak. 22:25 Chuck Bonham: From the very beginning moments, all of us involved assumed a worse case. At that moment in time we had a planning number of a spill of about 3,134 Barrels which is 131,000 gallons rounding as a maximum worst case. 30:59 Chuck Bonham: A month later we now think the likely spill number is 24,696 gallons 41:13 Chuck Bonham: Fortunately given the size of the spill, there were not as many wildlife casualties as could have occurred during a higher migration cycle. 1:25:47 Mayor Kim Carr: So starting off on Saturday, October 2, it's been brought up that yes, we did have a very large air show happening that day. About 1.5 million people were on the beach that day to see the Pacific Air Show. And around nine o'clock that morning, there were city personnel that heard an announcement on VHF channel 16 by the Coast Guard of a possible oil spill in the area, but nothing very specific. At that time, no major details, it wasn't anything to really worry about. By 10:30 in the morning, the Coast Guard had advised us that the spill was larger than originally thought. However, we didn't have a whole lot of information as to where the location of the spill was nor of the scope of the situation. By 11 o'clock that same day, the Coast Guard had announced that it was now going to be a major spill, and that the incident management team was being activated. 1:28:00 Mayor Kim Carr: At two o'clock, the Coast Guard had advised us that the oil spill would not be reaching the shores of Huntington Beach until Monday, October 4. And again, we didn't have a whole lot of information as to where the spill was. We knew it was off our coast, but we didn't know exactly where or exactly how large the spill was. But then interestingly enough, just a half hour later, we started to receive messages that there were boats that were experiencing oil damage just outside of the air show flight box. And so that became a concern for our city. So then we activated our fire crews, our hazmat team, or the oil spill response trailer and started to do the mitigation efforts. Then this is where it gets to be very, very interesting. At 2:45 the city was notified by the Newport Beach rescue vessel that there were private contractors conducting oil spill cleanups outside of the air show flight box. 1:32:42 Mayor Kim Carr: What we could have done better, what would have been an opportunity was perhaps if the Coast Guard had some sort of awareness, the night before or when that nine o'clock notification came through, we could have been even more proactive because as I said before, every hour during these crises matters. 1:34:00 Mayor Kim Carr: The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve was spared. The Talbert Marsh does have oil damage and again looking back, if we could have had maybe a few more hours notice, we probably could have mitigated that damage even more than what we did. 1:43:17 Brian Nowicki: Like all of you, we at the Center for Biological Diversity are heartbroken by every oil and seabird and are alarmed at the miles of marshes and coastline that will be poisoned for years by this bill. We're angry that yet again, the oil industry has proven its inability to contain its toxic pollution. The structure of pipeline funding to beach proves yet again, that every piece of fossil fuel infrastructure is yet another disaster waiting to happen. And there is a lot of that infrastructure in California. It's increasingly old, outdated in disrepair and poorly located, like the 40 year old pipeline that gave us this most recent spill, all of which makes it increasingly dangerous. Looking beyond the nine oil platforms and islands in state water, there are 23 platforms in federal waters off California. But the fact that those 23 platforms are a little farther from shore should not give us much comfort. First, because oil spills from those operations still end up in our water, our beaches and our wildlife. But also as we've heard today, further from shore also means longer stretches of aging and dangerously vulnerable infrastructure, like the 17 mile long pipeline we're discussing today are clean, reliable federal regulations to protect us from oil spills in federal waters. Federal regulators continue to prove that they are perfectly willing to allow those platforms to continue operating to the last drop of oil despite the mounting dangers of decaying infrastructure well beyond its intended lifespan, outdated drilling plans, numerous violations and insufficient bonds to pay for decommissioning. 1:45:15 Brian Nowicki: But I want to be clear that this is not a problem unique to offshore platforms. At the exact same time that 10s of thousands of gallons of oil were rolling up onto beaches and marshes in Orange County, there was an oil spill in Kern County that is now approaching 5 million gallons of fluid, a mixture of crude oil, toxic wastewater, that includes 600,000 gallons of crude. In fact, in just the last few years, there have been many oil spills in California greater than the spill off Huntington Beach. In the Cymric field alone there were three huge spills in 2019 at 550,000 gallons, 836,000 and 1.2 million gallons respectively. 159,000 in Midway in 2019, 250,000 at McKittrick in 2020. There is another ongoing spill at a separator plant in Cymric that has been leaking since 2003 and has reportedly released as much as 84 million gallons of fluid to date. Now these numbers reflect total combined volumes of crude and produced water and mud, which constitute a toxic mix. As state agencies have testified before this legislature in the past, these dangerous onshore oil operations have contaminated groundwater, land, and wildlife. 1:46:32 Brian Nowicki: After more than 150 years of the oil industry drilling at will in California, the oil is gone and the bottom of the barrel that's left is harder and more dangerous to extract. There's also some of the most carbon polluting crude in the world. With the easy stuff taken, the oil industry is in decline in California, with production down 68% since 1985. The only question is how much more damage will this dying industry do on its way out? 1:49:10 Pete Stauffer: Now with the oil deposit seen as far south as the Mexico border, there are concerns that San Diego wetlands are also being impacted. Moreover, while birds, fish and marine mammals have been the most visibly impacted, the full scale of the ecological damage will take some time to become clear. In the week since the spill event, the oil slick has transformed into an incalculable number of tar balls in the ocean, while tar balls typically float, they can also find their way into underwater sediment or near shore habitats where their impacts on ecological health and wildlife may persist for years or even decades. 1:52:51 Pete Stauffer: According to the federal government there have been at least 44 oil spills since 1969 that have each released more than 10,000 barrels of oil into US waters 2:02:36 Mayor Kim Carr: Just to give you an idea of how much TOT we do receive in Huntington Beach, we receive about $16 million a year. We don't receive anything from those offshore platforms, nothing. And as far as the drilling that we currently have here in Huntington Beach, it's less than $700,000 a year. 2:05:54 Brian Nowicki: What I can't say though, for sure is that it's going to take longer than one season to see what the full impacts are to the local wildlife. And of course, it is wetlands and marshes that often are the most difficult and take the longest to recover from the sorts of impacts. 2:21:11 Jennifer Lucchesi: In 1921, the legislature created the first tidelands oil and gas leasing program. The existing offshore leases the commission is responsible for managing today were issued over a 30 year period between 1938 and 1968. Importantly, I want to highlight a specific act in 1995. The Cunningham shell Act, which serves as a foundational law for the existing legacy oil and gas leases the commission currently manages. Importantly, this Act required the commission to issue oil and gas leases for term not based on years, but for so long as oil and gas is produced in paying quantities. Essentially, this means that Alessi can produce oil and gas pursuant to their state lease indefinitely as long as it is economic for them to do so. 2:58:13 Jennifer Lucchesi: For pipelines that are solely within state waters and under lease with the State Lands Commission, we require the pipelines to be externally and internally inspected annually. And we have engineers on staff that review those inspections and consult with the fire marshal as well with our federal partners on any type of remedial action that needs to happen based on the results of those inspections. For those pipelines that cross both federal and state waters our authority is more limited because the federal government's regulatory authority takes precedence. And PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) is the primary federal agency that regulates those interstate pipelines. They require inspections externally and internally every two years. And that's what this pipeline at issue was subjected to, the platform Elly pipeline. 03:01:20 Senator Dave Min: Let's say you have a pipe and the lease term ends. What powers do you have? What are the considerations you have to follow either statutory or contractually to renew those permits, issue a new permit? Or alternatively, do you have any leeway contractually, statutorily to end those permits prematurely and say, you know, we don't think that, you know, the upkeep is appropriate, you're violating certain provisions, we're just gonna take away your permit prematurely. Do you have any leeway like that? So I'm just trying to get a sense of your flexibility, both in issuing new right of way permits, but also yanking away existing permits. Jennifer Lucchesi: Certainly. So I can give an example of our lease compliance and enforcement actions most recently, with a pipeline that served platforms Hogan and Houchin in the Santa Barbara Channel. Those are two federal platforms in federal waters, that pipeline that served those platforms did cross into state waters and connected on shore. That pipeline lessee of ours was not compliant with our lease terms and the commission took action to terminate those leases based on non compliance and default in breach of the lease terms. And essentially, that did terminate production on those two federal platforms. And they are part of the eight federal platforms that BOEM just announced they were going to be looking at as part of a programmatic EIS for decommissioning. The Commission does not have the authority to unilaterally terminate an existing valid lease absent any evidence of a breach or non compliance Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee October 18, 2021 Witnesses: Dr. Michael H. Ziccardi Director, Oiled Wildlife Care Network Executive Director, One Health Institute, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis Scott Breneman Commercial Fishing, Retail Market, and Restaurant Owner Newport Beach, CA Vipe Desai Founding Member, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast Dr. David L. Valentine Norris Presidential Chair, Earth Science Professor of Marine Science, UC Santa Barbara Clips Rep. Katie Porter: As of October 10, workers had recovered 250,000 pounds of oily debris and 14 barrels full of tar balls from the Orange County shorelines. That is a small fraction, though, of the oil that was released, most of which is being distributed in the ocean, making its way into the food chain or falling to the ocean floor. Some of that oil is now heading south. And we will not learn the long term consequences on the environment for many years to come. Rep. Katie Porter: The witnesses here with us today will reveal a different kind of subsidy for oil and gas companies, an involuntary subsidy that occurs when the community bears the costs of oil drilling’s pollution. When a locally owned business like Mr Brennaman that has been in the family for four generations loses tens of thousands of dollars because of the leak. That's his subsidies to oil and gas. When a hotel loses its bookings overnight. That's its subsidy for oil and gas. When the fragile decades-long effort to recover a species under the Endangered Species Act is finally showing progress, but an oil spill puts it all at risk. That's a cost of oil and gas to these subsidies and so many others are the reasons that oil wells like the ones behind this leak are still active. Getting rid of the subsidies is the first step to get rid of the problem. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA): We know that the spill was not reported by the responsible oil company until the next day, despite the company's knowledge. We also know that Orange County residents recognize that there was a problem in part due to the smell caused by this bill and actually reported it before the oil company did so, clearly something wrong with that. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA): In my congressional district, which is just the south of here, the spill shutdown businesses and beaches in Dana Point in San Clemente. Tarballs that are likely caused by the spill have also been found as far south in my district as Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas and Del Mar in San Diego County. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA): It'll come as no surprise that more than $2 billion in wages and $4 billion in gross domestic product are generated by Orange County's ocean and marine economy, including tourism. So we have a lot to lose every time there's a spill, not just to our beaches but to our economy. Dr. Michael H. Ziccardi: In Birds, the primary issue we are concerned mostly about are the acute effects due to hypothermia. If you think of feathers almost as a dry suit in animals, if oil gets on that dry suit, it creates a hole that allows cold water to seep next to the skin. Birds can get very cold in the environment and start to waste away, they have to come ashore to stay warm, but they can no longer eat. So these birds actually can waste away in a matter of days unless proactive capture occurs. There can also be chronic effects in animals as well due to printing of oil off of the feathers or ingestion in their food items. Those chronic effects can include, in essence, effects on every organ system in an animal's body from reproductive effects liver, kidney, respiratory tracts, depending on the dose and the exposure and the toxin itself. Scott Breneman: We were fishing on Friday, October 1, and we were coming in the harbor and I detected a distinct odor of oil and it was about midnight we're heading in. Kind of search around the boat. I thought maybe it was a spill on the boat or a hose broke. I went in the engine room, searched all the hatches where I keep all my extra fluids and everything, didn't find anything. Come the next day the press released that there was an actual oil spill, and my fish sales and my fish market, once that was released, they dropped drastically down, 90% this past few weeks since it was released. I've seen the same effect -- my family's been fishing for four generations and in the 90s my dad went through the oil spill that was off Seal Beach, in our fish market, the same exact response from the public scared, worried the products contaminated. A huge ripple effect all the way up to the wholesalers I deal with outside of Orange County there. They had concerns from their customers, their restaurants. And to rebuild that business when it happened in the 90s, I watched my dad struggle for months to get back to back to where it was and it's...I’m seeing the same exact thing happen here. A couple of days after the oil spill they had closed Newport Harbor. And so my boat was actually trapped inside of the harbor so I wasn't even able to go service my accounts. And it's just been, to tell you the truth, a very difficult couple of weeks and I'm not sure how long this is going to last. I'm not sure how the public's going to respond to it long term if there's still going to have some fear that the fish is contaminated. Vipe Desai: In fact between 2007 and 2018 there were over 7000 oil spills in federal waters, an average of about two every day. Vipe Desai: The first impact came from the much anticipated Pacific Air Show. As oil began to wash ashore, beaches were deemed unsafe for activity. On Saturday October 2nd, 1.5 million visitors saw the show from Huntington Beach, but the show's triumphant conclusion on Sunday was cancelled with little fanfare. Cancellations hit hotels and resorts almost immediately and their surrounding retail and restaurants suffered. Wing Lam, co-founder of Wahoo’s Fish tacos, informed me that the Saturday before the oil spill felt like a busy summer day. But the following day, once word got out about the spill, it was a ghost town. In addition, as the spill moved south, their locations in Laguna Beach and San Clemente started to feel the impacts. Bobby Abdel, owner of Jack's Surfboards, had a similarly bleak weekend. He told me that once the oil spill was announced customer traffic plummeted. Their stores are facing a stockpile of unsold inventory from the US Open of Surfing and the Pacific Air Show. All nine of Jack's Surfboards locations were impacted in some form or another because of the spill. Later in the week, I received a call from a colleague, Wendy Marshall, a full time hard working mother of two who shared with me that her upcoming Airbnb reservations, a form of income to help her offset college tuition costs for her children, had mostly been cancelled. From Dana Point though dolphin and whale capital of the world and the first whale Heritage Site in the Americas. Giselle Anderson from local business Captain Dave's Dolphin and Whale Watching Safari shared losses from trips and bookings into November could be down as much as 74% because of the oil spill. Dr. David L. Valentine: I want to invoke my privilege as a university professor to start with a little bit of a history lesson. Many people think that the largest spill in US history occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. This is not correct. The largest spill in US history occurred in California. It was not the October 2021 spill that we're here to talk about today. Nor was it the 2015 refugio beach pipeline rupture on the gaviota coast. It was not the 2007 Cosco, Busan spill and San Francisco Bay. And it was not the 1997 platform Irene pipeline rupture of Annenberg Air Force Base. It was not the 1990 American traders spill off the coast of Huntington Beach. It was not the 1969 platform, an oil spill off of Santa Barbara, the one that helped spawn the environmental movement. Nor was it the sinking of the SS Montebello, an oil freighter that was hit by a Japanese torpedo off the coast of Cambria and World War Two. It was called the Lakeview Gusher. It occurred in Kern County, and it's estimated to have released around 380 million gallons of oil over an 18 month period starting in 1910. And I tell you this bit of California history because it punctuates five important points. First, oil production carries inherent risk. Second, California has suffered more than its fair share of spills. Third, the size of a spill is only one factor in determining its impact. Fourth, responsiveness and context matter. And fifth, every spill is different and that includes the impacts. Dr. David L. Valentine: For the current spill, I have honed in on three key modes of exposure that concern me most: floating oil slicks that can impact organisms living at or near the sea surface, coastline areas such as wetlands where oil can accumulate and persist, and the sea floor, where oil can easily hide from view but may still pose longer term risks. Among these three, the fate of impacts of submerged oil is especially relevant to California, is the least well understood, and requires additional research effort. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): So recently I asked the Department of Interior about the specific kinds of subsidies that Beta Operating received. Beta is a subsidiary of Amplify Energy, and that's the company that owns the platforms and the pipelines that leaked off our coast. It turns out that they got nearly $20 million from the federal government, specifically because the oil wells are at the end of their lives and are not producing much oil, which makes them less profitable. So taxpayers are being asked to pay to encourage oil production in the Pacific Ocean by giving oil companies millions of dollars to do it. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): Beta operating is in line to get another $11 million to drill for new wells off the coast because that $11 million is needed, in their words, “to make production economic.” So taxpayers are being asked to pay Beta to drill new wells. That means wells that would otherwise not be drilled without our taxpayer subsidy. Dr. Michael H. Ziccardi: What we have found, during and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is that dolphins can be significantly impacted by oil, primarily through inhalation of the fumes at the surface and ingestion of the oil substances themselves. What we found is that it affects their immune system, it affects their reproductive tract, and it affects their gastrointestinal tract, so very significant changes. And that's information that is just now starting to come out in the publications from the Deepwater Horizon incident. Vipe Desai: Had this oil spill moved north, it would have impacted two of the busiest ports in the nation, which account for billions of dollars of goods flowing in and out of both ports of LA and Long Beach. And that would have had an even larger impact to other communities across the US. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA): The annual oil production off the coast of California is about 1/3 of what our nation produces in a single day. So it really is a drop in the bucket when you consider the overwhelming potential for economic damage for environmental damage, the risks simply aren't worth it. Vipe Desai: California's ocean economy generates $54.3 billion in revenue and supports 654,000 jobs. Dr. David L. Valentine: In Orange County, the areas that I would look at most closely as being especially vulnerable on the environmental side would be the wetland environments. Places like Talbert Marsh where oil can surge in with the tide. And it can get trapped in those environments and it can get stuck and it won't come back out when the tide recedes. Those are especially vulnerable because they're these rich, diverse ecosystems. They provide a whole host of different services, whether it's flyways, or fisheries, or in keeping the nutrient levels moderated in coastal waters. And that oil can stick there and it can have a long term impact. And furthermore, cleanup in those cases can be very difficult because getting into a marsh and trying to clean it up manually can cause as much damage as oil can cause. Dr. David L. Valentine: And then the other environment that I worry a lot about is the environment we can't see, that is what's going on under the surface of the ocean. And in that case, we can have oil that comes ashore and then gets pulled back offshore but is now denser because it's accumulated sand and other mineral matter. And that can be sticking around in the coastal ocean. We don't really understand how much of that there is or exactly where it goes. And that concerns me. Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA): But Dr. Valentine, how concerned Do you think California should be that companies that own the offshore platforms, wells and pipelines might go bankrupt and pass decommissioning costs on to taxpayers? Dr. David L. Valentine: I think that we need to be very concerned. And this is not just a hypothetical, this is already happening. There are two instances that I can tell you about that I've been involved with personally. The first stems from the pipeline 901 rupture, also known as the Refugio, a big oil spill that happened in 2015. When that pipeline ruptured, it prevented oil from being further produced from platform Holley, off the coast of Santa Barbara just a few miles from my home. That platform when it was completely shut in, all 30 wells, was unable to produce any oil and the company, a small operator, went bankrupt. And then shortly thereafter, they went bankrupt again. And this time, they just gave up and they did something called quit claiming their lease back to the state of California. Meaning that the plugin abandonment and property commissioning fell into the lap of the State of California in that case, and that is an ongoing, ongoing saga. The second example I would give you is in Summerland. In 1896, the first offshore oil wells in this country were drilled from piers in Summerland. Those have been leaking over the years. And as recently as last year, there were three leaky oil wells coming up in Summerland. The state of California has found money to try alternative plug in abandonment strategies because anything traditional is not going to work on something that is 125 some odd years old. So that would be the second example where this is now falling into the taxpayers lap yet again. October 14, 2021 Witnesses: Dr. Donald Boesch Professor and President Emeritus, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Dr. Greg Stunz Endowed Chair for Fisheries and Ocean Health, and Professor of Marine Biology Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University Robert Schuwerk Executive Director, North America Office Carbon Tracker Initiative Ms. Jacqueline Savitz Chief Policy Officer, Oceana Clips Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN): I can certainly provide a summary of things that will help keep energy prices down: issue onshore and offshore lease sales; reinstate the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline; renew our commitment to exporting American energy, instead of importing foreign energy; reform a broken permitting process; and stop burdening domestic producers. Dr. Donald Boesch: Oil and gas production from wells in less than 1000 feet of water declined as fuels discovered in the 80s and even earlier were depleted. Crude oil production in these relatively shallow waters declined by over 90% both in the Gulf and and in Southern California. Natural gas production in the OCS, which mainly came from the shallow water wells, declined by 80%. Offshore fossil energy production is now dominated in the deep water off the Gulf of Mexico, up to 7500 feet deep. Deepwater production grew by 38% just over the last 10 years since the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Dr. Donald Boesch: Since the lifting of the crude oil export ban in 2016, last year there was 78% more crude oil exported from Gulf terminals, exported overseas, than actually produced in the US OCS and three times as much natural gas exported, than produced offshore. Dr. Donald Boesch: So, the depletion of shallow water gas has left this legacy of old wells and declining resources and the infrastructure requires decommissioning and removal. Much of this infrastructure is not operated by the original leaseholders, but by smaller companies with lesser assets and technical and operational capacity. Dr. Donald Boesch: Off Southern California there are 23 platforms in federal waters, eight of which are soon facing decommissioning. In the Gulf, on the other hand, there are 18,162 platforms and about 1000 of them will probably be decommissioned within this decade. Dr. Donald Boesch: According to the GAO, as you pointed out, there are 600 miles of active pipelines in federal waters of the Gulf, and 18,000 miles of abandoned plant pipelines. The GAO found the Department of the Interior lacks a robust process for addressing the environmental and safety risk and ensuring clean up and burial standards are met. And also monitoring the long term fate of these, these pipelines. Dr. Donald Boesch: At recent rates of production of oil and gas, the Gulf’s crude oil oil reserves will be exhausted in only six or seven years. That is the proven reserves. Even with the undiscovered and economically recoverable oil that BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) estimates in the central and western Gulf, we would run out of oil about mid century. So unless some miracle allows us to capture all of the greenhouse gases that would be released, we really can't do that and achieve net zero emissions, whether it be by resource depletion, governmental or corporate policy, or investor and stockholder decisions. Offshore oil and gas production is likely to see it see a steep decline. So the greenhouse gas emissions pathway that we follow and how we deal with the legacy and remaining infrastructure will both play out over the next decade or two. Dr. Greg Stuntz: In fact, these decades old structures hold tremendous amounts of fish biomass and our major economic drivers. A central question is, how do these structures perform in relation to mother nature or natural habitat and I'm pleased to report that in every parameter we use to measure that success. These artificial reefs produce at least as well are often better than the natural habitat. We observe higher densities of fish, faster growth and even similar output. Thus, by all measures, these data show artificial reefs are functioning at least equivalent on a per capita basis to enhance our marine resources. Rob Schuwerk: When a company installs a platform and drills well, it creates an ARO, an obligation to reclaim that infrastructure when production ends. This costs money. But companies aren't required to get financial assurance for the full estimated costs today. Money to plug in active wells today comes from cash flows from oil and gas production. But what happens when that stops? The International Energy Agency sees peak oil and gas demand as early as 2025. This will make it harder to pay for decommissioning from future cash flows. Decommissioning is costly. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) data indicate that offshore AROs could range from $35 to over $50 billion while financial assurance requirements are about $3.47 billion. That is less than 10% of expected liability. The GAO believes these figures may actually underestimate the true costs of retiring the remaining deepwater infrastructure. Rob Schuwerk: Only about a third of the unplug wells in the Gulf of Mexico have shown any production in the last 12 months. Why haven't the other two thirds already been retired? Because of uncertainty as to when to close and poor incentives. Infrastructure should be decommissioned when it's no longer useful. But the regulator has difficulty making that determination. This uncertainty explains why BSEE waits five years after a well becomes inactive to deem it no longer useful for operations with years more allowed for decommissioning. These delays increase the risk that operators will become unable to pay or simply disappear. We've seen this already with a variety of companies including Amplify Energy's predecessor Beta Dinoco off California and Fieldwood recently with Mexico. Rob Schuwerk: There's also a problem of misaligned economic incentives. As it is virtually costless to keep wells unplugged, companies have no incentive to timely plug them. AROs are like an unsecured, interest free balloon loan from the government with no date of maturity. There's little incentive to save for repayment because operators bear no carrying cost and no risk in the case of default. If the ARO loan carried interest payments commensurate with the underlying non performance risk, producers would be incentivized to decommission non economic assets. The solution is simple, require financial assurance equivalent to the full cost of carrying out all decommissioning obligations. This could take the form of a surety bond, a sinking fund or some other form of restricted cash equivalent. If wells are still economic to operate, considering the carrying cost of financial assurance, the operator will continue production, if not they’ll plug. In either case, the public is protected from these costs. Rob Schuwerk: A key risk here is operator bankruptcy that causes liabilities to be passed on to others. And we could see this in the recent Fieldwood bankruptcy. Fieldwood was formed in 2012 and in 2013 acquired shallow water properties from Apache Corporation. It went through chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2018, and then undeterred, acquired additional deepwater platforms from Noble Energy. Fieldwood returned to bankruptcy in 2020. It characterized the decommissioning costs it shared with Apache as among the company's most significant liabilities. The bankruptcy plan created new companies to receive and decommission certain idle offshore assets. If they failed, prior operators and lessors would have to pay. Several large oil and gas companies objected to this proposal. They were concerned that if Fieldwood couldn't pay they would. Ultimately the plan was proved. The case illustrates a few key dynamics. First, if bankrupt companies cannot pay, others, including taxpayers, will. How much of the possibly $50 billion in offshore decommissioning liability is held by companies that are only a dragged anchor, a hurricane a leaking pipeline or oil price shock away from default? And second, as detailed in my written testimony, private companies who face liability risks understand them better than the government does. When they transfer wells, they demand financial protections that are in fact greater than what the government requires today. Jacqueline Savitz: Supplemental bonds are necessary to protect taxpayers from the risk of spills but BOEM is overusing the waiver provisions that allow a financial strength test to waive requirements for supplemental bonds. BOEM regulations require that lessees furnish a relatively small general bond and while BOEM has discretion to acquire supplemental bonds, it generally waives those. General bonds that lessees are required to furnish don't come close to covering the cost of decommissioning and haven't been updated since 1993. Since that year, the cost of decommissioning has gone up in part because development has moved into deeper waters, only about 10% of offshore oil production in the Gulf was in deepwater in 1993. But by 2014, that figure rose to 80%. Regulations need to be updated to ensure the federal government and taxpayers are not left picking up the tab on decommissioning. According to GAO, only 8% of decommissioning liabilities in the Gulf of Mexico were covered by bonds or other financial assurance mechanisms, with the other 92% waived or simply unaccounted for. Jacqueline Savitz: BSEE does not conduct oversight over decommissioning activities underway and it does not inspect decommissioned pipelines so the Bureau can’t ensure that the industry has complied with required environmental mitigation. Jacqueline Savitz: Leak detection technologies that the oil and gas industry touts as safer have not been proven to prevent major leaks. All pipelines in the Pacific region are reportedly equipped with advanced leak detection equipment. Though two weeks ago we saw exactly what can happen even with the so-called “Best Technology.” Dr. Donald Boesch: In Hurricane Ida, all of a sudden appeared an oil slick, and it lasted for several days. And apparently it was traced to an abandoned pipeline that had not been fully cleared of all the residual oil in it so that all that oil leaked out during that incident. Dr. Donald Boesch: One of the challenges though, is that this older infrastructure is not operating in the same standards and with the same capacity of those of the major oil companies that have to do that. So for example, when I noted that they detected this methane being leaked, they didn't detect it from the new offshore deepwater platforms which have all the right technology. It's in the older infrastructure that they're seeing. Rob Schuwerk: There's actually one thing that exists offshore, joint and several liability, that only exists in certain jurisdictions onshore. So in some ways the situation onshore is worse. Because in some states like California you can go after prior operators if the current operator cannot pay, but in many jurisdictions you cannot. And our research has found that there is about $280 billion in onshore liability, and somewhere around 1% of that is covered by financial assurance bonds so, there is definitely an issue onshore rather than offshore. Rob Schuwerk: The issue is just really giving them a financial incentive to be able to decommission. And that means they have to confront the cost of decommissioning and internalize that into their decision on whether continuing to produce from a well is economic or not. And so that means they need to have some kind of financial insurance in place that represents the actual cost. That could be a surety bond where they go to an insurer that acts as a guarantor for that amount. It could be a sinking fund, like we have in the context of nuclear where they go start putting money aside at the beginning, and it grows over time to be sufficient to plug the well at the end of its useful life. And there could be other forms of restricted cash that they maintain on the balance sheet for the benefit of these liabilities. Jacqueline Savitz: Remember, there is no shortage of offshore oil and gas opportunity for the oil industry. The oil industry is sitting on so many, nearly 8.5 million acres of unused or non producing leases, 75% of the total lease acreage in public waters. They’re sitting on it and not using it. So even if we ended all new leasing, it would not end offshore production. Rob Schuwerk: Typically what we'll see as well to do companies will transfer these assets into other entities that have less financial means and wherewithal to actually conduct the cleanup. Rep. Katie Porter: So they're moving once they've taken the money, they've made the profit, then they're giving away they're basically transferring away the unprofitable, difficult, expensive part of this, which is the decommissioning portion. And they're transferring that. Are they transferring that to big healthy companies? Rob Schuwerk: No, often they're transferring it to companies that didn't exist even just prior to the transfer. Rep. Katie Porter: You mean a shell company? Rob Schuwerk: Yes. Rep. Katie Porter: Like an entity created just for the purpose of pushing off the cost of doing business so that you don't have to pay it even though you've got all the upside. Are you saying that this is what oil and gas companies do? Rob Schuwerk: We've seen this, yes. Rep. Katie Porter: And how does the law facilitate this? Rob Schuwerk: Well, I suppose on a couple of levels. On the one hand, there's very little oversight of the transfer. And so there's very little restriction from a regulatory standpoint, this is true, offshore and also onshore. So we see this behavior in both places. And then secondary to that there are actions that companies can take in bankruptcy that can effectively pass these liabilities on to taxpayers eventually and so some of it is to be able to use that event, the new company goes bankrupt. Rob Schuwerk: Certainly no private actor would do what the federal government does, which is not have a security for these risks. May 19, 2021 Witnesses: Laura Zachary Co-Director, Tim Stretton Policy Analyst, Clips Laura Zachary: There have long been calls for fiscal reforms to the federal oil and gas program. Compared to how states managed oil and gas leasing, the federal government forgoes at least a third of the revenue that could have been captured for taxpayers Laura Zachary: On January 27 of this year, the Biden administration signed Executive Order 14008 that pauses issuing new federal oil and gas leases. And importantly, the language implies a temporary pause, only on issuing new leases, not on issuing drilling permits. This is a critical distinction for what the impacts of a pause could be. Very importantly, federal permitting data confirms that to date, there has been no pause on issuing drilling permits for both onshore and offshore. And in fact, since the pause began, Department of Interior has approved drilling permits at rates in line with past administrations. Tim Stretton: Because taxpayers own resources such as oil and gas that are extracted from public lands, the government is legally required to collect royalties for the resources produced from leases on these lands. Project on Government Oversight’s investigations into the federal government's oversight of the oil, gas and mining industries have uncovered widespread corruption that allows industry to cheat U.S. taxpayers out of billions of dollars worth of potential income. Given the amount of money at stake and the oil and gas industry's history of deliberately concealing the value of the resources they've extracted with the intent of underpaying royalties, the government should be particularly vigilant in ensuring companies pay their fair share for the resources they extract. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR): We are here today for the majority's attempt, which I believe is more of a publicity stunt to criticize the oil and gas industry than to talk about real facts and data. The playbook is a simple one: recycled talking points to vilify the industry and to paint a distorted picture of so-called good versus evil. I'm sure that we'll hear more about corporate subsidies that aren't. We'll hear about unfair royalty rates that aren't and we'll hear many other meme worthy talking points that fail the logic test. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR): What we're -really talking about today is an industry that provides reliable and affordable energy to our nation. This isan industry that contributes to almost 10 million jobs and plays a vital role in our daily lives. In fact, we cannot conduct virtual hearings like this without the fossil fuel industry. And of course, when myself and my colleagues travel to Washington, DC, we rely on this industry to fly or to drive here. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR): But they ignore the real world consequences of demonizing this industry. The results are devastating job loss and the loss of public education funding to name just a few. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN): I also had a roundtable discussion and learned how New Mexico schools received nearly $1.4 billion in funding from oil and gas just last year. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): Mr. Stretton, how long has your organization been conducting oversight of oil and gas production on federal lands? Tim Stretton: For decades, I mean, we started doing this work in the early 90s. And actually, some of our earliest work in the space was uncovering in excess of a billion dollars in unpaid royalties to your home state of California. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA): And you mentioned, what are some of the patterns? You've been doing this for decades? What are some of the patterns that you observe over time? Tim Stretton: The oil and gas industry working with each other to really undervalue the resources they were selling, fraudulently telling the government the value of those resources, which left billions of dollars in unpaid revenue going to the federal government. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): There are some people who have made environmentalism a religion. Rather than focus on solutions that can make lives better for people, some would prefer to vilify an industry that provides immeasurable benefits to people's livelihood in the function of modern day society. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): The other side looks at globalism, you know this environmental movement globally. So it makes more sense to me at least and folks I come from that we produce it cleaner more efficiently than anybody else in the world. And so that geopolitical application, if you're an environmentalist, you would want more American clean oil and gas out there versus Russian dirty or Chinese dirty gas. Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT): In January state education superintendents in Wyoming, Miami, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah submitted a letter to President Biden outlining their concerns with the administration's oil and gas ban which has reduced funding used to educate our rising generation. Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM): I'm glad to be able to highlight the true success story of the oil and gas industry in my home state of New Mexico. To put it simply, the oil and gas industry is the economic backbone of New Mexico and has been for decades. The industry employs 134,000 People statewide and provides over a billion dollars each year to fund our public education. Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM): Many of my Democratic colleagues have stated that green energy jobs can replace the loss of traditional energy jobs, like the 134,000 Oil and Gas jobs in my state. Many also say that we need to be transitioning to a completely carbon free energy grid. Can you tell me and the committee why both of those ideas are completely fantasy? Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD241: 20th Anniversary of the Patriot Act

25 oktober 2021 | 90 min

The Patriot Act: A law that is still governing us after 20 years despite being almost universally hated. In this episode, we take a close look at the lesser known parts of the Patriot Act that became permanent immediately, examine the status of the few provisions that had to be reauthorized over the years, find out how the law was crafted in the first place, and see what happened to the members of Congress who voted for this rights-destroying legislation. Executive Producer: Stephen McMahan Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : January 6: The Capitol Riot : The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders : Equifax Breach : Anthrax : USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act : The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Patriot Act Overviews Charles Doyle. April 18, 2002. Congressional Research Service. Charles Doyle. December 10, 2001. Congressional Research Service. Indefinite Detention Anna Mulrine Grobe. October 7, 2021. The Christian Science Monitor. Jessica Corbett. July 22, 2020. Common Dreams. Carol Rosenberg. June 29, 2020. The New York Times. Nino Guruli. February 24, 2020. The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia. March 14, 2016. Congressional Research Service. ACLU. December 31, 2011. ACLU. October 23, 2001. Credit Reporting Agencies Ken Sweet. October 6, 2017. Inc. Craft. Macrotrends. Macrotrends. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Reauthorizations and Expirations Charlie Savage. August 14, 2020. The New York Times. India McKinney and Andrew Crocker. April 16, 2020. EFF. Charlie Savage. March 27, 2020. The New York Times. Office of the Press Secretary. March 9, 2006. The White House. Steven M. Martinez. April 21, 2005. archives.fbi.gov Brain Duignan. Britannica. ACLU. Surveillance Charlie Savage. January 22, 2021. The New York Times. Charlie Savage. December 3, 2020. The New Times. Charlie Savage. March 31, 2020. The New York Times. Byron Tau and Michelle Hackman. February 7, 2020. The Wall Street Journal. Charlie Savage. December 11, 2019. The New York Times. Sharon Bradford Franklin. July 25, 2018. Lawfare. Adam Liptak. June 22, 2018. The New York Times. International Impact Bill Weinberg. June 15, 2018. Cannabis Now. Bills and Laws The Patriot Act Law Outline Expanded the authority of the President to "investigate, regulate, or prohibit" financial transactions to include "any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Expanded the authority of the President to block transactions and property of "any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" "during the pendency of an investigation". Expands the authority of the President to confiscate property "of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country" when the US has been "attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals" and the President can then decide what to do with that property "for the benefit of the United States." These provisions remain in current law as of 10/18/21 Expands the list of suspected actions that can justify the Attorney General and some subordinates obtaining judicial permission for wiretaps (a list that has since been expanded further) to include terrorism related crimes. Allows grand jury information to be shared with "any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official" if the matter involves "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" The government official who receives the information has to notify the court that it got the information, but that notification can be in secret and they have to submit it "within a reasonable time after such disclosure", which is not defined. The government official who receives the information is authorized to share it with "any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official" if it includes "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" The procedures for sharing the information was left up to the Attorney General to decide. Authorizes the FBI to speed up the hiring of translators If a person is a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power", the government can authorize wiretapping a "common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other specified person" if the court finds that the target is using communications that "may have the effect of thwarting the identification" of the target. The warrants can be issued for up to 120 days fi they are for targeting individuals and can be for up to a year if targeting a "foreign power" Allows the government to seize the contents of voicemails using a warrant instead of a surveillance order, which is a faster method for authorization. Expands the information that can be subpoenaed from telecom companies to include connection records, records of call times and duration, types of services used, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and method of payments included credit card or bank account numbers. This provision had no sunset. Allows the telecom companies to provide customer data to the government if it "reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serous physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information with delay" Allows the telecom companies to provide customer data "to any person other than a governmental entity" Allows the government to require a telecom company to disclose customer records, which was previously an option decided by the telecoms. Allows the government to delay notifying their target about a warrant if they court finds that the notification "may have an adverse result" such as an individual fleeing prosecution, endangerment of someone's life, tampering with evidence, witness intimidation, or jeopardizing the investigation. This provision allowed "sneak and peek" warrants, which allowed the government to secretly enter - physically or electronically - a target's property to search, take pictures, copy documents, download files, etc. as long as they didn't take any property with them. This provision had no sunset. Eliminates the requirements that trace devices only be applied to devices and facilities used by foreign persons, so that now they can be used on devices belonging to US citizens so long as the devices are likely to provide information related to a foreign intelligence investigation. Authorizes the FBI to order "the production of any tangible items" for their investigations into international terrorism, as long as the investigation of a US citizen or company is "not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." The entity turning over the property can not tell anyone that they gave the FBI whatever they requested or tell anyone about the investigation's existence, and in return, the entity that produced the items "shall not be liable to any other person for such production." Requires that the court "shall" authorize the installation of trace devices "anywhere within the United States" if the court finds that the government has shown that the information likely obtained from the devices "is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." The order "shall apply to any personal or entity providing wire or electronic communication services in the United states" A record must be kept of which officers installed the device, the date and time it was installed and uninstalled, the date, times, and durations that the device is accessed for information, and the information collected from the device. The record must be provided to the court "under seal" within 30 days "after termination of the order". There was no sunset for this provision. Allows companies to voluntarily request law enforcement monitoring of intruders on their networks and authorizes the government to intercept information transmitted by a "computer trespasser" Allows judges to issue search warrants outside of the districts where the property to be searched is located. There was no sunset for this provision. Requires that companies that help the government install tracing devices authorized by Section 216 on their network be "reasonably compensated for such reasonable expenditures incurred in providing such facilities or assistance." If a court finds that an employee of the United States has disclosed information collected improperly, the government has to conduct a proceeding to determine if discipline is warranted. Damages can be awarded of at least $10,000 plus litigation costs. Sets an expiration date of December 31, 2005 for Sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222. Provides immunity to anyone who complies with a FISA wiretap, including private and government persons. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to require domestic financial institutions to maintain records and file reports, including personally identifiable information, about transactions in a location outside the United States or between foreign financial institutions. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose conditions upon accounts being opened in domestic financial institutions by people from foreign jurisdictions. Requires banks that open accounts for non-US citizens to investigate the background of the account opener or owner for money laundering red flags. Prohibits domestic financial institutions from opening or maintaining accounts for a foreign bank that doesn't have a physical presence in any country. Orders the Secretary of the Treasury to write regulations that encourage law enforcement and financial institutions to share information about individuals, entities, and organizations, with a specific focus on charitable organizations, non-profit organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. A financial institution that shares information that "may involve terrorist acts or money laundering activities" can not be held liable "under any law or regulation of the United States" or of any state or contract and they can not be held liable for failing to inform their customer that their information was shared. Expands what qualifies as "money laundering" to include "bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of public official" and some smuggling and firearm offenses. An owner of property that is confiscated under US laws that allow the seizure of assets of suspected international terrorists can contest that confiscation, but the government can use evidence against them to justify the confiscation that is "otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence" if it finds that "compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence may jeopardize the national security interests of the United States." If funds are deposited by suspect into an account at a foreign bank that has an account in the United States, the money in that bank's account -up to the amount deposited in the target's account - can be held or seized from the bank's account. If a foreign bank doesn't terminate their relationship with the suspect, that foreign bank can be fined up to $10,000 per day until that relationship is terminated. If a convicted criminal hides their property, the court "shall" order other property up to the value of the missing property to be seized. Expands the government's power to seize property held inside the United States if the property was obtained via felony drug offenses if the offense would be punishable by death or more than one year in prison under the foreign nation's or the US's laws. The government can apply for and the courts can grant restraining orders to hold property that is the subject of investigations being conducted by foreign governments as long as the offense would have been illegal if committed in the United States. No one can object to the restraining order. The defendant is no longer required to have received notice of the proceedings in time to act but instead the foreign court has to "take steps" to notify the defendant. The Secretary of the Treasury has to write regulations that require banks to verify the identity of their customers and check a list of suspected terrorists to make sure that those people are not trying to open accounts at their bank. Any official or employee of the US Federal Government, or any one who helps them, commit fraud on the United States "shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. Provides immunity to "any financial institution" that makes a voluntary disclosure of a possible violation of law to a government agency Prohibits the financial institution or anyone in it and the officers and employees of the Federal Government from notifying the customer that their suspicious transaction has been reported to the government. Authorizes employees of "any insured depository institution" (which includes "any uninsured branch or agency of a foreign bank") to "disclose in any written employment reference" of a current or former employee information about "the possible involvement" of that person in "potentially unlawful activity." If the information is shared "with malicious intent", the institution sharing the information can be sued. Consumer reporting agencies "shall furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other information in a consumer's file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, international terrorism when presented with a written certification by such government agency that such information is necessary" for the agency's investigation. The consumer reporting agency is not allowed to tell the consumer that the government requested the information or that the government received it. Provides immunity for a consumer reporting agency that complies with the government request. Transforms the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) into a bureau in the Department of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury may impose civil money penalties equal to or more than 2 times the amount of the transaction but not more than $1 million on any financial institution that violates the money laundering laws and special measures. Requires that any coin or currency transaction that is over $10,000 be reported to FinCEN. The reports must include the name and address of the recipient, the amount, the date and nature of the transaction, and the name of the person filing the report. This does not apply to any transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside of the United States. Creates the crime of "currency smuggling", which is when someone knowingly conceals more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on themselves or in their luggage or containers and transports it, or attempts to transport it, into or out of the United States. Punishment: Up to 5 years in prison and forfeiture of the money involved in the smuggling, or an equal amount from the suspect's personal belongings. Anyone who "knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business" can be imprisoned for 5 years, fined, or both. Expands the definition and punishments for counterfeiting to include analog, digital, and electronic images. Lengthens prison sentences for a range of counterfeiting offenses. Dramatically expands prison sentences for counterfeiting foreign currencies from single digit year sentences to 20-25 years. Expands the applicability of computer fraud offenses committed outside the United States if they involve devices issued by a company inside the United States, like a credit card, or if the defendant used any property within the United States to commit the crime. Authorizes unlimited funds to triple the number of border patrol agents, customs agents, and INS inspectors on our northern border along with an additional $50 million to update technology. The Attorney General and the FBI will provide criminal history records to the State Department Adds being a representative of a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Secretary of State or being a representative of an organization that publicly endorses terrorist activity to the grounds to denial of entry into the United States. If the endorsement of terrorist activity has occurred in the last five years, that person's spouse and children are also barred from entering the United States (this can be waived by the Attorney General if it can be proved that the spouse/children didn't know or has renounced the behavior). Defines "terrorist activity" "To commit or to incite to commit under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury To gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity To solicit funds or other things of value for a terrorist activity, a terrorist organization (unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity). To solicit any individual to engage in terrorist activity or membership in a terrorist organization (unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity). To commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training for the commission of a terrorist activity, to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity, or to a terrorist organization (unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity.) Defines a "terrorist organization" A group designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in "terrorist activity" or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity A group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in "terrorist activity" The Attorney General "may" certify that an "alien" is "engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States" An alien who is certified "shall" be taken into custody by the Attorney General "The Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States... such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified" If the alien is finally determined to not be removable, detention "shall terminate" but an alien who has not been removed "and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person." Judicial review of "any action or decision" relating to this section ("including judicial review of the merits of a determination") is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings. Outside of that, "no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision." The habeas corpus proceedings that are allowed may be initiated only by an application filed with the Supreme Court, any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, or "any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it." The final order "shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals." Allows the Secretary of State to share information with other countries about "individual aliens" for the "purpose of preventing, investigating, or punishing acts that would constitute a crime in the United States" Allows the Attorney General to offer rewards via public advertisements for assisting the Justice Department to "defend the Nation against terrorist acts" The money can come from "any executive agency or military department" "Neither the failure to of the Attorney General to authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be subject to judicial review" Allows the Secretary of State to pay rewards - including rewards over $5 million - for "the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization" The reward limit has since been increased to $25 million, but higher amounts can be personally authorized by the Secretary of State Rewards up to $100,000 do not need to be approved by the Secretary of State Current law: "A determination made by the Secretary under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to judicial review" Allows Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance or physical searches to coordinate with Federal law enforcement officers to "investigate or protect against" actual or potential attacks, sabotage, or clandestine intelligence activities by agents of a foreign power. Authorizes FBI investigators to collect the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records of telephone, financial records, and consumer reports of US citizens as long as the investigation is "not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Allows the FBI to obtain records faster using National Security Letters instead of the previous process where they had to document specific and facts showing that the person is an agent of a foreign power Allows the Attorney General (or high ranking designee) to request a court order for educational records that are relevant to investigations into "an act of domestic or international terrorism" The application to the court "shall certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe" that the records will likely contain information related to their terrorism investigation. Provides immunity to educational agencies and institutions that comply with the court orders Increases the death or severe disability payment amount from $100,000 to $250,000 Allocates money specifically to 9/11 victims and ensures that the payments do not count as income in order to reduce any government assistance that victim receives. Funds new information sharing networks Sets penalties for attacking mass transportation systems For attacks or plots that don't kill anyone or have passengers on board: Fines and up to 20 years in prison For attacks on vessels carrying at least one passenger or that result in "the death of any person", fines and up to life in prison. "The term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Current law maintains this definition Establishes punishments for anyone who "harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit" a list of terrorism related crimes. They can be fined, sent to prison for up to 10 years, or both. Any Federal judicial district court can prosecuted these offenses. Gives the Federal Government jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Americans that take place on property used - not necessarily owned - by the United States in foreign countries and in the residences used by United States personnel assigned to foreign missions. Subjects to civil forfeiture "all assets, foreign and domestic of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization; acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism... or derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism..." The language 'any act of domestic or international terrorism' has since be changed to 'any Federal crime of terrorism' Exempts terrorism crimes that result in or created a forseeable risk of death or serious bodily injury from an 8 year statute of limitations. Increases penalties for crimes Arson prison sentences increase from a maximum of 20 years to a maximum of life Destruction of energy facilities increase from a maximum of 10 years to a maximum of 20 years Arson or energy facility destruction crimes that result in a death can be given life sentences Material support to terrorists and terrorist organization prison sentences increased from a maximum of 10 years to 15 years Material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations that result in a death can be given life sentences Destruction of national defense material crimes and sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel prison sentences increased from a maximum of 10 years to 20 years Destruction of national defense material crimes and sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel that result in a death can be given life sentences Damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility crimes prison sentences increased from a maximum 15 years to 20 years Damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility crimes that result in a death can be given life sentences Adds people who conspire to commit crimes including arson, killings in Federal facilities, destruction of communications lines, stations, or systems, wrecking trains, material support to terrorists, torture, conspiracy, sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel, interference with flight crew members and attendants, damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility, and a few others to the list of those who can be punished with fines and prison sentences. Increases the penalty for intentionally damaging a federal computer from up to 5 years in prison to up to 10 years in prison (up to 20 years for a repeat offender). Establishes a maximum 10 year prison sentence and a fine for anyone who "knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity... that is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose." Because only the President and Attorney General are able to initiate a FISA surveillance order, this provision facilitates information sharing from the Attorney General to the CIA in a way that ensures that the CIA "Director shall have no authority to direct, manage, or undertake electronic surveillance or physical search operations." The Attorney General or the head of "any other department or agency of the Federal Government" with law enforcement responsibilities "shall expeditiously disclose" to the Director of Central Intelligence foreign intelligence gotten in the course of a criminal investigation. Creates a grant program where the Attorney General will fund States and local governments for hiring additional law enforcement personal dedicated to "intelligence gathering", purchasing spying equipment such as wire-tap, pen links, cameras, and computer hardware/software, protective equipment for patrol officers, and communications operations for improved interoperability among surrounding jurisdictions. Authorizes $5 million for fiscal year 2002 for "regional antidrug training in the Republic of Turkey" by the DEA for police and "increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region." "During the period of time that United States armed forces are engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom and for the period of 180 days thereafter", the Department of Defense is allowed to use their money to contract out security at their military bases in the United States to local and State governments. The Attorney General will complete background checks at the request of the States on people applying for a license to transport hazardous material Creates the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) Hearings Sound Clip Transcripts 1:26:29 Rep. Bobby Scott: First of all, I think it's appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Judiciary Committee. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what's in it since we've been out of our offices. The report has just come to us. And it would be helpful if we'd wait for some period of time so that we can at least review what we're voting on. But I guess that's not gonna stop us. So here we go. 1:27:26 Rep. Bobby Scott: This bill makes three significant changes. One, it reduces s+tandards for getting a foreign intelligence wiretap from one where it is the reason you're getting it, to it is a significant reason for getting the wiretap, much less. Then you wonder, well, if it's not the primary reason, why are you getting the wiretap? Second, it allows the roving wiretap so once you find a target, if he's using cell phones, for example, you can go and find them wherever he is. And third, you can use the information in a criminal investigation and the combination gives you the situation where there's very little standard, and you can essentially conduct a criminal investigation without probable cause. If you have, for example, a target, who is using cell phones, you get the the wiretap, he uses a payphone, you can listen to anybody using the payphone. If he's in a club or organization, in a business, you can go on you tap the phones there, if he's visiting the democratic national headquarters, maybe you can tap all the phones there. 1:29:47 Rep. Bobby Scott: There are provisions that allow attention under certain circumstances that may be indefinite, we expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches and so called sneak and peek where you don't tell people they're even being investigated. And you can start targeting domestic organizations, designated domestic groups, as terrorist groups and you can start getting the CIA into designating these groups as targets for criminal investigations. There's a lot in this bill that we have not appropriately considered. And that's why we need more time to think of it because it goes way past terrorism. This is the way you're going to be conducting criminal investigations and therefore the bill ought to be defeated. 1:39:09 Rep. Spencer Bachus: You know, we may not have understood and appreciated the word “terrorism” and what terrorists were before September 11. We certainly do today. We know who they are. We know what they're capable of. We may not have appreciated the need for this legislation before September 11, but surely today, we appreciate the need for this legislation and the urgency of such legislation. 1:44:04 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: I'm concerned that the legislation still permits the Attorney General indefinitely to incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion and to deny readmission to the United States of such non-citizens. I'm also concerned that the AG and the Secretary of State have the power to designate domestic terrorists. You might simply be paying dues and be declared part of a terrorist organization. It has widespread investigation of Americans just on the basis of intelligence purposes. It allows searches of highly personal financial records, and allows student records to be searched. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, let us show America's character and bring forth a bill that all of us will find a good balance. We'll review this bill but I hope that we'll vote on a good bill and provide the leadership that we need to lead. 1:46:41 Rep. Marge Roukema: I would like to say to some of the naysayers that complain about the provisions, the question as to whether or not they deny due process or whatever. The question has been asked, Are we endangering the rights and privacy of innocent Americans? The answer is no. But it does give our law enforcement officials the requirements that they need for their careful investigation. It gives our regulators and law enforcement officials what they need to get the job done. 1:52:25 Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I would also like to note, however, that there's been a lot of loose language among people who oppose this bill, and people are perfectly free to disagree with it, but it's important that we not be incorrect about what's actually in the bill. I actually heard someone say that the bill would provide for indefinite incarceration on a mere suspicion by the Attorney General, that's simply not the case. The Attorney General may detain persons but he has to certify and he has to have reasonable reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals have involved in terrorism and that decision is reviewable by a court. So that is really the to say it's a mere suspicion and indefinite is certainly not the case. 2:07:48 Rep. Mel Watt: Some groups in our country have had their rights violated, trampled on, by the law enforcement authorities in this country and so we don't have the luxury of being able to just sit back and give authority, more authority, than is warranted, the authority possibly to abuse due process, to law enforcement, even in the context of what we're going through now. This is a very difficult time. I acknowledge that it is. But I think we are giving the government and law enforcement too much authority in this bill. 2:18:15 Rep. Barney Frank: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I'm gonna vote on this bill yet, because I have this notion that in a bill of this weight, I ought to read it. So what I want to talk about now is my deep disappointment at the procedure. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the chair of the committee, has fought hard for a fair chance for the members to look at things. But on the whole, his efforts have not been honored. We now, for the second time, are debating on the floor a bill of very profound significance for the constitutional structure and security of our country and in neither case has any member been allowed to offer a single amendment. At no point in the debate in this very profound set of issues, have we had a procedure whereby the most democratic institution in our government, the House of Representatives, engages in democracy. Who decided that to defend democracy we had to degrade it? Who decided that the very openness and participation and debate and weighing of issues, who decided that was a defect at a time of crisis? This is a chance for us to show the world that democracy is a source of strength, that with our military strength and our determination and our unity of purpose goes to continued respect for the profound way in which our democracy functions. And this bill ironically, this bill which has been given all these high flying acronyms, it's the Patriot bill, it's the USA bill, it's that stand up and sing the Star Spangled Banner bill, has been debated in the most undemocratic way possible. And that's not worthy of this institution. 2:21:13 Rep. John Conyers: The members of the judiciary committee, who had a free and open debate, and then we came to a bill that even though imperfect, was unanimously agreed on. That was removed from us and we're now debating at this hour of the night, with only two copies of the bill that we're being asked to vote on available to the members on this side of the aisle. 2:22:18 Rep. John Conyers: Although I like the the money laundering provisions in the bill, I detest the work product that bears the name of my committee on it that has now been joined with this bill. And for this reason, as we close this debate, my inclination is not to support the bill. 2:23:12 Rep. James Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, this is the latest step in a long process to attempt to pass a bill and send to the president that is vitally needed. It is vitally needed by our law enforcement officials, who are fighting the battle at home. We don't know how this battle will be fought. We don't know what tactics the enemy will take. We don't know what agents the enemy will use. And what we need is we need to get the intelligence necessary to protect the people of the United States of America from whatever the enemy has planned up its sleeve. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD240: BIF The Infrastructure BILL

11 oktober 2021 | 64 min

Jen has been all over the internet lately telling the world that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework is a dumpster fire of a bill. In this episode, she backs that up by comparing the levels of investment for different kinds of infrastructure and examining the society changing effects the bill would have if it were to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Recommended Articles and Documents Benjamin J. Hulac and Joseph Morton. October 7, 2021. . Connor Sheets, Robert J. Lopez, Rosanna Xia, and Adam Elmahrek. October 4, 2021. Donald Shaw. October 4, 2021. . Michael Gold. October 1, 2021. . Utilities Middle East Staff. September 13, 2021. Utilities. Adele Peters. September 8, 2021. Hiroko Tabuchi. August 16, 2021. . Robert W. Haworth and Mark Z. Jacobson. August 12, 2021. Emily Cochrane. August 10, 2021. . National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. June 3, 2021. U.S. Department of Transportation. Nation Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). May 19, 2021. Michael Barnard. May 3, 2021. . Hiroko Tabuchi. April 24, 2021. . Grist Creative. April 15, 2021. American Society of Civil Engineers. 2021. Open Secrets. Savannah Keaton. December 30, 2020. . Dale K. DuPont. August 6, 2020. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. 2020. Jeff Butler. January 27, 2019. plugboats.com Our World in Data. Hydrogen Council. 2019. Mark Z. Jacobson et al. September 6, 2017. Kendra Pierre-Louis. August 25, 2017. Chuck Squatriglia. May 12, 2008. . Renewable Energy World. April 22, 2004. United States Department of Energy. February 2002. The Bill Bill Outline Authorizes appropriations for Federal-Aid for highways at between $52 billion and $56 billion per year through fiscal year 2026. Authorizes the government to pay up to 85% of the costs of replacing or retrofitting a diesel fuel ferry vessel until the end of fiscal year 2025. Authorizes between $600 million and $700 million per year through 2026 (from the Highway Trust Fund) for repairs to bridges If a Federal agency wants grant money to repair a Federally owned bridge, it "shall" consider selling off that asset to the State or local government. Creates a new program to improve the ability of children to walk and ride their bikes to school by funding projects including sidewalk improvements, speed reduction improvements, crosswalk improvements, bike parking, and traffic diversions away from schools. Up to 30% of the money can be used for public awareness campaigns, media relations, education, and staffing. No additional funding is provided. It will be funded with existing funds for "administrative expenses." Authorizes between $110 million and $118 million per year through 2026 (from the Highway Trust Fund) to construct ferry boats and ferry terminals. Creates a new grant program with $15 million maximum per grant for governments to build public charging infrastructure for vehicles fueled with electricity, hydrogen, propane, and "natural" gas. The construction of the projects can be contracted out to private companies. Establishes a program to study and test projects that would reduce emissions. Allows, but does not require, the Transportation Secretary to use money for projects related to traffic monitoring, public transportation, trails for pedestrians and bicyclists, congestion management technologies, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications technologies, energy efficient street lighting, congestion pricing to shift transportation demand to non-peak hours, electronic toll collection, installing public chargers for electric, hydrogen, propane, and gas powered vehicles. Creates a grant program, funded at a minimum of $10 million per grant, for projects aimed at reducing highway congestion. Eligible projects include congestion management systems, fees for entering cities, deployment of toll lanes, parking fees, and congestion pricing, operating commuter buses and vans, and carpool encouragement programs. Buses, transit, and paratransit vehicles "shall" be allowed to use toll lanes "at a discount rate or without charge." Establishes the "PROTECT program", which provides grants for projects to protect some current infrastructure from extreme weather events and climate related changes. Types of grants include grants for "at-risk coastal infrastructure" which specifies that only "non-rail infrastructure is eligible" (such as highways, roads, pedestrian walkways, bike lanes, etc.) Establishes a grant program to install reflective pavement and to expand tree cover in order to mitigate urban heat islands, improve air quality, and reduce stormwater run-off and flood risks. Caps each grant at $15 million Provides grants for pilot projects to test our acceptance of user-based fee collections and their effects on different income groups and people from urban and rural areas. They will test the use of private companies to collect the data and fees. Creates a pilot program to test a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee. Authorizes $2 billion total per year until 2026 on projects that cost at least $100 million that include highway, bridge, freight rail, passenger rail, and public transportation projects. Authorizes $1.5 billion total per year until 2026 (which will expire after 3 years) for grants in amount between $1 million and $25 million for projects that include highway, bridge, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, port infrastructure, surface transportation at airports, and more. Authorizes appropriations for Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor at between $1.1 billion and $1.57 billion per year through 2026. Authorizes appropriations for Amtrak in the National Network at between $2.2 billion and $3 billion per year through 2026. Changes the goal of cooperation between Amtrak, governments, & other rail carriers from "to achieve a performance level sufficient to justify expending public money" to "in order to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of the United States" and expands the service areas beyond "urban" locations. Changes the goals of Amtrak to include "improving its contracts with rail carriers over whose tracks Amtrak operates." Food and beverage service: Amtrak will establish a working group... Amtrak must submit a report... Amtrak will not be allowed to privatize the jobs previously performed by laid off union workers. Amtrak would study bringing back long distance rail routes that were discontinued. Extends the amount of time the government will pay the operating costs of Amtrak or "any rail carrier" that provides passenger rail service from 3 years to 6 years, and pays higher percentages of the the costs. Creates a program to eliminate highway-rail crossings where vehicles are frequently stopped by trains. Authorizes the construction on tunnels and bridges. Authorizes up to 10 grants per year valued at a maximum of $ million each to plan and promote new Amtrak routes The Secretary of Transportation will create a program for public entities to plan for expanded intercity passenger rail corridors, operated by Amtrak or private companies. When developing plans for corridors, the Secretary has to "consult" with "host railroads for the proposed corridor" The Administration of the Federal Railroad Administration would establish a "3 year blocked crossing portal" which would collect information about blocked crossing by trains from the public and first responders and provide every person submitting the complaint the contact information of the "relevant railroad" and would "encourage" them to complain to them too. Information collected would NOT be allowed to be used for any regulatory or enforcement purposes. The Secretary of Transportation will have to issue a rule requiring that all carriers that transport human passengers have an emergency lighting system that turns on when there is a power failure. The Comptroller General will conduct a study to determine the annual operation and maintenance costs for positive train control. Allows, but does not require, the Secretary of Transportation to create regulations governing the noise levels of trains that exceed 160 mph. Effective 3 years after the regulations are complete (maximum 5 years after this becomes law), freight cars will be prohibited from operating within the United States if more than 15% of it is manufactured in "a country of concern" or state-owned facilities. The Secretary of Transportation can assess fines between $100,000 and $250,000 per freight car. A company that has been found in violation 3 times can be kicked out of the United State's transportation system until they are in compliance and have paid all their fines in full. 180 days after this becomes law, all railroad mechanics will be subject to drug testing, which can be conducted at random. Authorizes between $13.3 billion and $14.7 billion per year to be appropriated for transit grants. Creates a $5 billion grant distribution program to electric grid operators, electricity storage operations, electricity generators, transmission owners and operators, distribution suppliers, fuels suppliers, and other entities chosen by the Secretary of Energy. The grants need to be used to reduce the risk that power lines will cause wildfires. States have to match 15%. The company receiving the grant has to match it by 100% (small utilities only have to match 1/3 of the grant.) Grant money be used for micro-grids and battery-storage in addition to obvious power line protection measures. Grant money can not be used to construct a new electricity generating facility, a large-scale battery facility that is not used to prevent "disruptive events", or cybersecurity. The companies are allowed to charge customers for parts of their projects that are not paid for with grant money (so they have to match the grant with their customer's money). Creates a demonstration project to show utility companies that electric car batteries can be used to stabilize the grid and reduce peak loads of homes and businesses. The demonstration project must include a facility that "could particularly benefit" such as a multi-family housing building, a senior care facility, or community health center. The US Geological Survey will get $320 million and ten years to map "all of the recoverable critical minerals." Authorizes $167 million to construct a new facility for energy and minerals research. The facility can be on land leased to the government for 99 years by "an academic partner." Requires the USGS to retain ownership of the facility. Authorizes $140 million to build a rare earth element extractions and separation facility and refinery. Does NOT require the government to retain ownership of the facility. Authorizes $600 million for 2022 and 2023 and $300 million for each year between 2024 and 2026 for grants and loan guarantees for projects for transporting captured carbon dioxide. Each project has to cost more than $100 million and the government can pay up to 80% of the costs. If the project is financed with a loan, the company will have 35 years to pay it back, with fees and interest. Loans can be issued via private banks with guarantees provided by the government. Creates a new program for funding new or expanded large-scale carbon sequestration projects. Authorizes $2.5 billion through 2026. Creates a new program for grants or contracts for projects to that will form "4 regional direct air capture hubs" that will each be able to capture 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Authorizes $3.5 billion per year through 2026. Changes a goal of an existing research and development plan for hydrogen fuels (created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) from enhancing sources of renewable fuels and biofuels for hydrogen production to enhancing those sources and fossil fuels with carbon capture and nuclear energy. Expands the activities of this program to include using hydrogen for power generation, industrial processes including steelmaking, cement, chemical feestocks, and heat production. They intend to transition natural gas pipelines to hydrogen pipelines. They intend for hydrogen to be used for all kinds of vehicles, rail transport, aviation, and maritime transportation. Creates a new program to create "4 regional clean hydrogen hubs" for production, processing, delivery, storage, and end-use of "clean hydrogen." At least one regional hub is required to demonstrate the production of "clean hydrogen from fossil fuels." At least one regional hub is required to demonstrate the production of "clean hydrogen from renewable energy." At least one regional hub is required to demonstrate the production of "clean hydrogen from nuclear energy." The four hubs will each demonstrate a different use: Electric power generation, industrial sector uses, residential and commercial heating, and transportation. Requires the development of a strategy "to facilitate widespread production, processing, storage, and use of clean hydrogen", which will include a focus on production using coal. The hydrogen hubs should "leverage natural gas to the maximum extent practicable." Creates a new program to commercialize the production of hydrogen by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. The overall goal is to identify barriers, pathways, and policy needs to "transition to a clean hydrogen economy." Authorizes $9.5 billion through 2026. Develops a standard for the term "clean hydrogen" which has a carbon intensity equal to or less than 2 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent produced at the site of production per kilogram of hydrogen produced." Creates a program, authorized to be funded with $6 billion per year through 2026, that will provide credit from the government to nuclear reactors that are projected to shut down because they are economically failing. Authorizes a one-time appropriation of $125 million for fiscal year 2022. Authorizes a one-time appropriation of $75 million for fiscal year 2022. Authorizes a one-time appropriations of $553 million for repairs and improvements to dams constructed before 1920. The government will pay a maximum of 30% of the project costs, capped at $5 million each. Authorizes $2 million per year through 2026 to pay 50% or less of the costs of a demonstration project to test the ability of a pumped storage hydropower project to facilitate the long duration storage of at least 1,000 megawatts of intermittent renewable electricity. Creates a new program, authorized to be funded with $500 million through 2026, to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of putting clean energy projects on former mine land. There will be a maximum of 5 projects and 2 of them have to be solar. Defines a "clean energy project" to include "fossil-fueled electricity generation with carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration." Authorizes $505 million through2025 for energy storage demonstration projects. Authorizes between $281 million and $824 million per year through 2027 for advanced nuclear reactor demonstration projects. Authorizes between $700 million and $1.3 billion through2025 for advanced nuclear reactor demonstration projects. Authorizes $84 million through 2025 for geothermal energy projects. Authorizes $100 million through 2025 for wind energy projects. There is a clarification that this is definitely NOT in addition to amounts wind gets from another fund. Authorizes $80 million through 2025 for solar energy projects. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD239: The Enablers of Larry Nassar

27 september 2021 | 108 min

In June 2015, the FBI in Indianapolis was notified that Larry Nassar, a doctor for Olympic caliber gymnasts, was sexually abusing his underage patients. In this episode, hear highlights from a riveting Senate hearing with testimony from Maggie Nichols, McKayla Maroney, Aly Raisman, and Simone Biles and get all the details presented in an Inspector General report explaining why the FBI did nothing to stop Larry Nassar for over a year while he continued to abuse dozens of additional young girls. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: . Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Documentaries Netflix. Hannah Shaw-Williams. June 24, 2020. Government Documents and Reports Office of the Inspector General. July 2021. United States Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. 2021. U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Jerry Moran and Senator Richard Blumenthal. July 30, 2019. Senate Olympics Investigation. Manly, Stewart & Finaldi. September 8, 2016. Superior Court of California, Sacramento. News Coverage Grace Segers. September 15, 2021. Rebecca Shabad. September 15, 2021. Kara Berg. September 8, 2021. Sayantani Nath. February 25, 2021. Reuters. February 25, 2021. Dan Barry, Serge F. Kovaleski and Juliet Macur. February 3, 2018. Matthew Futterman, Louise Radnofsky and Rebecca Davis O’Brien. June 2, 2017. Tim Evans, Mark Alesia, and Marisa Kwiatkowski. September 12, 2016. Marisa Kwiatkowski, Mark Alesia and Tim Evans. August 4, 2016. Matt Krantz. September 13, 2013. Audio Sources Senate Judiciary Committee September 15, 2021 Committee concluded a hearing to examine the Inspector General's report on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's handling of the Larry Nassar investigation, after receiving testimony from Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, and Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, both of the Department of Justice; Simone Biles, Houston, Texas; McKayla Maroney, Long Beach, California; Maggie Nichols, Little Canada, Minnesota; and Aly Raisman, Boston, Massachusetts. Sound Clips 47:54 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): By the time Nassar was convicted and sentenced in federal and Michigan State court, over 150 survivors had come forward to recount the impact of these horrific crimes. Today we believe Nasser abused more than 300 athletes before he was brought to justice. 48:20 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Between 2018 and 2019, a subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee led by our colleagues, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Senator Jerry Moran conducted an 18 month investigation into this case. The investigation concluded that the US Olympic Committee in the USA Gymnastics knowingly concealed abuse by masseur between the summer of 2015 and September of 2016. The Senate passed two bills aimed at addressing the failures in the Nasser case with overwhelming bipartisan support that protecting young victims from Sexual Abuse Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator Feinstein, and the umpiring Olympic Paralympic amateur athletes act of 2020 by Senators Moran and Blumenthal both extended the duty of certain adults to report suspected child abuse. These are good and important steps. But the reporting requirement in both laws is not worth much if law enforcement and the FBI failed to respond and immediately and aggressively investigate the abuse cases. 51:57 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): We'll also hear from the Inspector General and the FBI Director, who owe these young women in this committee an explanation of what the FBI is doing to ensure that this never happens again. And I'll add that I am disappointed. We asked the Justice Department to testify about their decision not to prosecute the two FBI officials who made false statements to the Attorney General. I understand it's a long standing department policy not to comment on decisions not to prosecute, but robust oversight of the Department of Justice is a core responsibility of this committee, committed to ensuring that committee members have an opportunity to question the Department of Justice about this issue at an oversight hearing in the fall. 56:44 Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA): I suspect there's much more to that story. One issue not talked about much is that the FBI has a division in Washington DC, known as the Violent Crimes Against Children unit. This component of headquarters was notified by two of its field offices about the Nassar allegations way back in 2015, and 2016, respectively. The Children's unit employs subject matter experts so it is well position in FBI to guide those field officers on their duties in child exploitation cases. Because it's housed at headquarters, this children's unit also was uniquely positioned to play a coordinating role by supervising case transfers to the appropriate FBI field offices. And this unit was well positioned to offer qualitative supervision of field offices' work. 58:19 Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The Children's unit helped develop a white paper, or more accurately, a whitewash, after the Nassar case attracted national attention. Ensuring that truthful information was provided about the FBI's role in this investigation was clearly not the main priority. This is a serious problem at the heart of the FBI. Not a case of a few errant agents. 1:00:12 Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Finally, I want to mention that I'm working on legislation to close the legislative loophole in the sex tourism statute that the Inspector General flagged in his report. This gap in the law allowed Larry Nassar to evade federal prosecution for assaulting children while traveling abroad. 1:26:34 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Our first witness Simone Biles, one of the greatest gymnast of all time. She is the first woman to capture five all round world championship titles and the most decorated gymnast, male or female, in World Championships history. 25 medals overall, she is a seven time Olympic medalist. Her extraordinary accomplishments have received widespread recognition including two Associated Press Female Athlete of the Year awards. 1:27:18 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): McKayla Maroney was a member of the American women's gymnastics team dubbed the Fierce Five at the 2012 Summer Olympics. She won a gold medal in team competition and an individual silver medal in the vault. She was also a member of the American team at the 2011 World Championships where she won gold medals in the team and vault competitions and the 2013 World Championships where she defended her vault title and we frequently see her on TV jumping on a roof. 1:27:48 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Our next witness Maggie Nichols led the University of Oklahoma women's gymnastics team to Team national championships in 2017 and 2019, also winning six individual titles. She represented the United States at the 2015 World Championships where she won a gold medal in team competition and a bronze medal on floor exercise. She also holds several USA Gymnastics national championship medals. 1:28:15 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Finally, Aly Raisman, one of the most accomplished American gymnast of all time, two time Olympian, team captain of the 2012 and 2016 women's gymnastics team captured six Olympic and four World Championship medals, including an individual silver medal in the 2016 Olympic all around and gold medals in team competition in 2012 and 2016. A leader on and off the floor. Reisman uses her platform to advocate for abuse prevention and education. 1:32:25 Simone Biles: USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee knew that I was abused by their official team doctor long before I was ever made aware of their knowledge. In May of 2015, Rhonda Faehn, the former head of USA Gymnastics women's program, was told by my friend and teammate, Maggie Nichols, that she suspected I, too was a victim. I didn't understand the magnitude of what was happening until the Indianapolis Star published its article in the fall of 2016, entitled, "former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse." Yet while I was a member of the 2016 US Olympic team, neither USAG USOPC nor the FBI ever contacted me or my parents, while others had been informed and investigations were ongoing. I had been left to wonder why was not taught until after the Rio Games. This is the largest case of sexual abuse in the history of American sport. And although, there has been a fully independent investigation of the FBI his handling of the case, neither USAG nor USOPC have ever been made the subject of the same level of scrutiny. These are the entities entrusted with the protection of our sport and our athletes. And yet it feels like questions of responsibility and organizational failures remain unanswered. 1:34:30 Simone Biles: We have been failed and we deserve answers. Nassar is where he belongs, but those who enabled him deserve to be held accountable. If they are not, I am convinced that this will continue to happen to others, across Olympic sports. In reviewing the OIGs report, it really feels like the FBI turned a blind eye to us and went out of its way to help protect USAG and USOPC. A message needs to be sent. If you allow a predator to harm children, the consequences will be swift and severe. 1:37:00 McKayla Maroney: As most of you are probably aware, I was molested by the US Gymnastics National Team and Olympic Team doctor, Larry Nasser, and in actuality, he turned out to be more of a pedophile than he was a doctor. What I'm trying to bring to your attention today is something incredibly disturbing and illegal. After telling my entire story of abuse to the FBI in the Summer of 2015, not only did the FBI not report my abuse, but when they eventually documented my report, 17 months later, they made entirely false claims about what I said. After reading the Office of Inspector General's OIG report, I was shocked and deeply disappointed at this narrative they chose to fabricate, they chose to lie about what I said and protect a serial child molester, rather than protect not only me, but countless others. My story is one which Special Agent in Charge Jay Abbott and his subordinates did not want you to hear. And it's time that I tell you. In the summer of 2015, like I said, I was scheduled to speak to the FBI about my abuse with Larry Nasser over the phone. I was too sick to go meet with anyone in person. And talking about this abuse would give me PTSD for days. But I chose to speak about it to try and make a difference and protect others. I remember sitting on my bedroom floor for nearly three hours as I told them what happened to me. I hadn't even told my own mother about these facts. But I thought as uncomfortable and as hard as it was to tell my story, I was going to make a difference, and hopefully protecting others from the same abuse. I answered all of their questions honestly and clearly. And I disclosed all of my molestations I had entered by Nassar to them in extreme detail. They told me to start from the beginning. I told them about the sport of gymnastics, how you make the national team, and how I came to meet Larry Nassar when I was 13 at a Texas camp. I told him that the first thing Larry Nassar ever said to me was to change into shorts with no underwear, because that would make it easier for him to work on me. And within minutes, he had his fingers in my vagina. The FBI then immediately asked, Did he insert his fingers into your rectum? I said, No, he never did. They asked if he used gloves. I said no, he never did. They asked if this treatment ever helped me. I said no, it never did. This treatment was 100% abuse and never gave me any relief. I then told the FBI about Tokyo, the day he gave me a sleeping pill for the plane ride, to then work on me later that night. That evening, I was naked, completely alone with him on top of me molesting me for hours. I told them I thought I was going to die that night, because there was no way that he would let me go. But he did. I told them I walked the halls of a Tokyo hotel at 2am, at only 15 years old. I began crying at the memory over the phone. And there was just dead silence. I was so shocked at the agent's silence and disregard for my trauma. After that minute of silence he asked "Is that all?" Those words in itself was one of the worst moments of this entire process for me, to have my abuse be minimized and disregarded by the people who were supposed to protect me. Just to feel like my abuse was not enough. But the truth is my abuse was enough, and they wanted to cover it up. USA Gymnastics in concert with the FBI and the Olympic Committee or working together to conceal that Larry Nassar was a predator. I then proceeded to tell them about London, and how he'd signed me up last on his sheet so he could molest me for hours twice a day. I told them how he molested me right before I won my team gold medal. How he gave me presents, bought me caramel macchiatos and bread when I was hungry. I even sent them screenshots of Nassar's last text to me, which was "Michaela, I love how you see the world with rose colored glasses. I hope you continue to do so." This was very clear cookie cutter pedophilia and abuse. And this is important because I told the FBI all of this, and they chose to falsify my report and to not only minimize my abuse, but silence me yet again. I thought given the severity of the situation, they would act quickly for the sake of protecting other girls, but instead, it took them 14 months to report anything when Larry Nassar, in my opinion, should have been in jail that day. 1:42:00 McKayla Maroney: According to the OIG report, about 14 months after I disclosed my abuse to the FBI, nearly a year and a half later, the FBI agent who interviewed me in 2015 decided to write down my statement, a statement that the OIG report determined to be materially false. 1:42:33 McKayla Maroney: What is the point of reporting abuse if our own FBI agents are going to take it upon themselves to bury that report in a drawer? 1:42:55 McKayla Maroney: What's even more upsetting to me is that we now we know that these FBI agents have committed an obvious crime. They falsified my statement, and that is illegal in itself. Yet no recourse has been taken against them. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute these individuals. Why? Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco couldn't even bring herself to be here today. And it is the Department of Justice's job to hold them accountable. 1:43:25 McKayla Maroney: I am tired of waiting for people to do the right thing, because my abuse was enough and we deserve justice. These individuals clearly violated policies and were negligent in executing their duties. And in doing so, more girls were abused by Larry Nasser for over a year. To not indict these agents is a disservice to me and my teammates. It is a disservice to the system which was built to protect all of us from abuse. It was a disservice to every victim who suffered needlessly at the hands of Larry Nassar after I spoke up. Why are public servants whose job is to protect getting away with this? This is not justice. Enough is enough. Today, I ask you all to hear my voice. I ask you please do all that is in your power to ensure that these individuals are held responsible and accountable for ignoring my initial report, for lying about my initial report, and for covering up for a child molester. 1:44:30 McKayla Maroney: I would like to express my deep gratitude to the United States Senate, a very powerful institution, that from the very beginning has fought for us rather than against us. 1:46:47 Maggie Nichols After I reported my abuse to USA Gymnastics, my family and I were told by their former president, Steve Penny, to keep quiet and not say anything that could hurt the FBI investigation. We now know there was no real FBI investigation occurring. While my complaints with the FBI, Larry Nassar continued to abuse women and girls. During this time the FBI issued no search warrants and made no arrests. From the day I reported my molestation by Nassar, I was treated differently by USAG. Not only did the FBI fail to conduct a thorough investigation, but they also knew that USAG and the USOPC created a false narrative where Larry Nasser was allowed to retire with his reputation intact and returned to Michigan State University, thus allowing dozens of little girls to be molested. As the Inspector General's report details during this time period, FBI agents did not properly documented evidence failed to report proper authorities and the Special Agent in Charge was seeking to become the new director of security for the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee. A job opportunity raised by Steve Penny. 1:51:20 Aly Raisman: In 2015, it was known that at least six national team athletes had been abused by Nassar. There was even one of the athletes that was abused on film. Given our abusers unfettered access to children, stopping him should have been a priority. Instead, the following occurred. The FBI failed to interview pertinent parties in a timely manner. It took over 14 months for the FBI to contact me, despite my many requests to be interviewed by them. The records establish that Steve Penney, FBI agent Jay Abbott, and their subordinates worked to conceal Nassar's crimes. Steve Penney arranged with the FBI to conduct my interview at the Olympic Training Center, where I was under the control and observation of USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee. The day of my interview, Steve Penny flew to the Olympic Training Center, and he made sure I was aware he was there. I felt pressured by the FBI to consent to Nassar's plea deal. The agent diminish the significance of my abuse and it made me feel my criminal case wasn't worth pursuing. Special Agent in Charge of investigating Nassar met Steve penny for beers to discuss job opportunities in the Olympic movement. Another FBI agent work with Steve penny to determine jurisdiction without interviewing the survivors. I've watched multiple high ranking officials at USAG, USOPC and FBI resign or retire without explanation of how they may have contributed to the problem, some of whom were publicly thanked for their service and rewarded with severance or bonus money. My reports of abuse were not only buried by USAG USOPC, but they were also mishandled by federal law enforcement officers who failed to follow their most basic duties. The FBI and others within both USAG and USOPC knew that Nasser molested children and did nothing to restrict his access. Steve Penny and any USAG employee could have walked a few steps to file a report with the Indiana Child Protective Services since they shared the same building. Instead, they quietly allowed Nassar to slip out the side door knowingly allowing him to continue his “work” at MSU Sparrow hospital, a USAG Club, and even run for school board. Nassar found more than 100 new victims to molest. It was like serving innocent children up to a pedophile on a silver platter. 1:54:33 Aly Raisman: USAG and USOPC have a long history of enabling abuse by turning a blind eye. Both organizations knew of Nassar's abuse long before it became public. Although you wouldn't know that by reading their press releases, which would have you and their corporate sponsors believe that athletes safety comes first. We have called for a fully independent factual investigation for years now, because I and these women who sit before you know firsthand, these organizations and their public statements are not to be trusted. They claim they want accountability, but then seek to restrict which staff can be interviewed, which documents can be examined and claim attorney client privilege over and over again. The so called investigations these organizations orchestrated were not designed to provide the answers we so critically need. Why are we left to guess why USAG and USOPC deliberately ignored reported abuse? Was it to protect the value of the sponsorships? The LA 28 bid? their own jobs? to avoid criminal liability, perhaps. But why must we speculate when the facts are obtainable and the stakes are so high? 1:56:04 Aly Raisman: Why would duly sworn federal law enforcement officers ignore reports of abuse by a doctor across state lines and country borders for a future job opportunity? Or whether additional incentives and pressures? Why must we speculate when the facts are obtainable and the stakes are so high 1:57:00 Aly Raisman: Without knowing who knew what when, we cannot identify all enablers or determine whether they are still in positions of power. We just can't fix a problem we don't understand 2:04:28 Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA): I Hope this isn't something so sensitive, you don't feel you can talk about it. But do you have any thoughts or inputs to share about SafeSport, the national nonprofit entity that has been tasked by Congress with handling allegations from amateur athletes? Aly Raisman: Yeah, I personally think safe sport is...I'm trying to be respectful here...I don't like safe sport. I hear from many survivors that they report their abuse and it's like playing hot potato where someone else kicks it over to somebody else, and they don't hear back for a really long time. I think a really big issue is that safe sport is funded by USA Gymnastics or the United States Olympic Committee. I'm not sure exactly what the correct terminology is. But if you're SafeSport and you are funded by the organization you're investigating, they're likely not going to do the right thing. And so I think that it needs to be completely separate. And I personally think SafeSport needs a lot of work. And I know from many survivors and you know, my mom has personally reported things to safesport, but we've followed up so many times, they say we can't help you or they either ignore us or pass it on to somebody else and the person they pass it on to says they kick it back to them. It's just a complete mess and the priority doesn't seem to be safety and well being of athletes. It seems to be protecting USA Gymnastics and doing everything to keep the PR good. 2:10:15 Aly Raisman: Because the FBI made me feel like my abuse didn't count and it wasn't a big deal. And I remember sitting there with the FBI agent and him trying to convince me that it wasn't that bad. And it's taken me years of therapy to realize that my abuse was bad that it does matter. 2:11:33 Simone Biles: Okay, one more to add -- we also want to see them, at least be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent because they need to be held accountable. 3:03:54 FBI Director Christopher Wray: I want to be crystal clear, the actions and inaction of the FBI employees detailed in this report are totally unacceptable. These individuals betrayed the core duty that they have of protecting people. They failed to protect young women and girls from abuse. The work we do certainly is often complicated and uncertain, and we're never going to be perfect, but the kinds of fundamental errors that were made in this case in 2015 and 2016 should never have happened. 3:06:37 FBI Director Christopher Wray: When I received the Inspector General's report and saw that the Supervisory Special Agent in Indianapolis had failed to carry out even the most basic parts of the job, I immediately made sure he was no longer performing the functions of a Special Agent, and I can now tell you that that individual no longer works for the FBI in any capacity. 03:07:01 FBI Director Christopher Wray: As for the former Indianapolis specialists in charge, the descriptions of his behavior also reflect violations of the FBI, his long standing code of conduct and the ethical obligations for all FBI employees, especially senior officials. Now that individual has been gone for the Bureau for about three and a half years having retired in January of 2018. Before any review launched and I will say I will say it is extremely frustrating that we are left with little disciplinary recourse when people retire before their cases can be adjudicated. 3:11:10 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: Let me briefly just summarize the results of our investigation. In July 2015, USA Gymnastics reported the sexual assault allegations against Nassar to the FBI Indianapolis field office. USA Gymnastics officials described graphic information that had been provided by Ms. Maroney, Ms. Nichols and Ms. Raisman, and informed the FBI that all three athletes were available to be interviewed. However, it wasn't until six weeks later, on September 2, that the Indianapolis office interviewed Ms. Maroney by telephone as you heard, and neither Ms. Nichols nor Ms. Raisman were ever interviewed by that office. Moreover, the Indianapolis office did not formally document its interview of Ms. Maroney at the time, or its July meeting with USA Gymnastics. The Office also didn't formally open an investigation or an assessment of the matter. Immediately following that September 2 interview, the Indianapolis office and local federal prosecutors concluded there was no venue in Indianapolis for the federal investigation. Both offices also had serious questions as to whether there was federal criminal jurisdiction, as opposed to state or local jurisdiction. Yet the Indianapolis Field Office didn't advise state or local authorities about the allegations and didn't take any actions to mitigate the risks to gymnast that Nassar was continuing to treat. Further, that office failed to transfer the case to the FBI office that actually might have had venue, despite informing USA Gymnastics that it had actually done so. 3:12:45 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: After eight months of FBI inactivity, in May 2016, USA Gymnastics officials contacted the FBI Los Angeles field office to report the same allegations that they had provided to the Indianapolis office. Following this meeting, the LA office opened a federal investigation and undertook numerous investigative steps. But, critically, it didn't contact state or local authorities and it didn't take action to mitigate the ongoing threat presented by Nassar. 3:13:13 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: It wasn't until August 2016 when Michigan State University Police, that police department, received a separate sexual assault complaint from another gymnast. And in September 2016, the next month, the MSU Police Department executed a court authorized search of Nassar's residence. Among other things, they seized devices containing over 30,000 images of child pornography. 3:13:42 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: According to civil court documents, approximately 70 or more young athletes were allegedly sexually abused by Nassar under the guise of medical treatment between July 2015, when the FBI first received these allegations, until September 2016. 3:14:00 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: We further found that when the FBI’s handling of the Nassar matter came under scrutiny in 2017 and 2018, Indianapolis officials provided inaccurate information to make it appear that they had actually been diligent in their follow-up efforts, and did so in part by blaming others. In addition, it resulted in the Indianapolis Supervisory Special Agent drafting a summary of his telephonic interview of Ms. Maroney from 2015. That summary included statements, as you heard from Ms. Maroney, that didn't accurately reflect what she had told them and could have actually jeopardized the criminal investigations by including false information that could have bolstered Nasser's defense. Further, we concluded that that agent made false testimony statements to the OIG in two interviews that we conducted. 3:14:55 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: We also learned during our investigation that in the fall of 2015, the FBI Indianapolis Special Agent in Charge, Jay Abbott, met with USA Gymnastics president, Steve Penny, at a bar and discussed a potential job opportunity with the US Olympic Committee. Thereafter, Abbott engaged with Penny about both his interest in the US Olympic Committee job and the Nassar investigation, while at the same time participating in Nassar investigation discussions at the FBI. Abbott applied for the US Olympic Committee position in 2017. But wasn't selected. We determined that Abbott's actions violated the FBI's clear conflicts of interest policy. We also found that Abbott made false statements to the OIG and my agents in two interviews that we conducted. 3:19:21 FBI Director Christopher Wray: So we have something called CAFI's, which are Child Adolescent Forensic Interviewers. These are interviewers who are specially trained in the unique sensitivities of what it takes to interview people, victims, survivors of these kinds of crimes. And one of the reforms that we've put in place is to make crystal clear in policy that interviews of individuals like Miss Raisman should be conducted with those kinds of interviewers and they should not be conducted telephonically, they should be conducted in person wherever possible. That was true before, we've made it more clear now, and we're putting training in place --mandatory training. 3:20:12 Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): General Horowitz, did any of the FBI employees or agents involved in this case deliberately misrepresent any facts to you and your investigation? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: They did. We found both that the person who wrote the report that Ms. Maroney testified about falsely testified to us about what he did in connection with that report, as well as other matters that we asked him about and Special Agent in Charge Abbott made false statements to us about the steps he took in 2015 when these allegations came in, but also about his job seeking efforts with the US Olympic Committee. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Do these deliberate misrepresentations reach the level of criminal violation? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: Well, we found that they violated criminal law sufficiently that in what we do at that point is make the referral to prosecutors to assess them because that's who needs to make the decision whether or not there will be charges brought. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Director Wray, what happened next? FBI Director Christopher Wray: Well, as inspector general Horowitz said, those were referred to the prosecutors over at the Justice Department and they're the ones that made the decision. As I understand it from Inspector General Horowitz's report the prosecutors at the Justice Department on two separate occasions, both in 2020 and then again in 2021, declined to prosecute, but I really would defer to the Justice Department for those. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): Are you personally aware or professionally aware of any facts or circumstances that would lead to that decision? FBI Director Christopher Wray: I am not. 3:22:49 FBI Director Christopher Wray: So there's a whole bunch of things we've done differently. First, we've accepted every single one of Inspector General Horowitz’s recommendations, and then some. We've already begun implementing all of those. We are strengthening policies, we're strengthening procedures. We're taking training, we're strengthening our systems, all building in double checked triple checks, safeguards, oversight, different ways of making sure that we cannot have as occurred here, in certain instances, a single point of failure. That's one of the lessons here that is just totally unacceptable. And so part of what's built in is a bunch of, as I said, double and triple, even quadruple checks to make sure that that doesn't happen, both in terms of how the initial reports are handled with the appropriate urgency, but also in terms of communication. One of the important recommendations from Inspector General Horowitz is reporting to state local law enforcement, as well as communications between field offices, transfers between field offices. 3:31:20 FBI Director Christopher Wray: My understanding of the most senior individual involved, based on looking at the thorough and independent investigation that Inspector General Horowitz conducted, was that the most senior individual with knowledge and responsibility was the Special Agent in Charge in Indianapolis, Mr. Abbott. 3:32:23 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: FBI policies don't require the level of detail and reporting to the headquarters unit that would, for example, put the responsibility directly on them to have notified state local authorities. 3:56:55 Senator Chris Coons (D-DE): My impression from what she'd said, and what I've read is that their concern is that USA Gymnastics and the Olympic Committee have thrown a variety of roadblocks into a genuinely thorough investigation into whether there had or hadn't been previous incidents similar to Dr. Nassar, either in USA Gymnastics or within sports more broadly. It is hard to believe that this is the only time that there's been a failing of this scale. Given, Director Wray, when you just said about the 16,000 arrests, we all know that the horror of child sexual abuse is tragically far more widespread in this country and around the world than any of us would like to see. So first. Mr. Horwitz, do you think there is still a pressing need? And who would be the appropriate entity to conduct that? And what if any advice do you have for us on respecting her request to this committee? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: It's a great question, Senator Coons. And, frankly, as you indicated, the reason we can do a report like this and other reports that we've been able to do is because of the statutory authorities that we've been given by the Congress that make us independent. And by the way, picking up on something Miss Raisman said, which was very perceptive, about who is funding the oversight, as you know, back in 2008, we were given an independent budget line so that our budget is not coming from the Justice Department, but is being set by an independent appropriator. I don't know, as I sit here, frankly, what the oversight mechanisms are currently on USOC and the other entities. But actually, one of the things I did have a chance to talk with Senator Blumenthal about during the break was the importance of given what I'd heard from these gymnast's, the very issue you just mentioned, which is thinking about what is the right independent oversight mechanism of those bodies, which are not just private entities, right? These are organizations that have been sanctioned by Congress to oversee our US athletes, and they need strong oversight as well and I'm happy to work with you as well Senator, and the committee, in thinking about how to do that because we are seeing the IG (Inspector General) model replicated in many places, as you know, across the country, including many state and local entities. 4:04:55 Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): What steps are you taking to ensure that the agents communicate allegations of sexual assault with local law enforcement? FBI Director Christopher Wray: So we've enhanced our policies and procedures on the specific issue of reporting sake and local law enforcement built in. Now they have to document it, which they didn't have to before. And that builds in, as inspector general Horowitz referred to, an ability to hold them accountable. They have to alert their supervisors. So there's a second set of eyes. So that would help. We've also enhanced our training to make clear that it's mandatory and that's regardless of whether there's some question about potential federal jurisdiction. We can continue to investigate if we there's federal jurisdiction, but we have to do, on a parallel track, report to the appropriate state and local or, in some cases, social services agencies as well. 4:06:36 FBI Director Christopher Wray: So I appreciate the question. There are two pieces of this one. The Child Adolescent Forensic Interviewers (CAFIs), which again, is a very specific discipline that requires very specific sensitivities and skill sets. And we've changed our policies to reinforce the use of those interviewers for these kinds of cases. Second is our victim services division. And one of the things that we changed even before receiving inspector general Horowitz his report on my watch is to make clear that the victim services that we provide, which is a little bit different from the forensic interviewing part of it, but it's also very important to handling these survivors with the appropriate sensitivity, that that is triggered at any stage. There is not just a full investigation, but we're in when we're in the assessment or pre-assessment phase. It has to happen there too. 4:07:42 FBI Director Christopher Wray: The scale of this kind of criminality in the country, as reflected by the 18,000 investigations that we've had over the past five years and the 16,000 arrests that we with our partners have made over the last five years, I think goes to your question about resources. And I can assure you that if the Congress were to see fit to give us more resources for those programs, they would immediately be able to be put to good use. 4:12:15 Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CN): Jay Abbott lied to you. Why do you in the course of your investigation of his Miss Congo 18 United States Code 1001. People get prosecuted for making false statements when they applied to a bank, federally insured bank for a mortgage. And here is a federal agent, the former Special Agent in Charge of the Indianeapolis office making a material false statement to you. In your investigation, you refer that for criminal prosecution, did you not? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: That's correct. 4:42:30 Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA): Could you please elaborate on the nature of the discussions between Mr. Abbott and Mr. Penny, regarding potential employment for Mr. Abbott at institutions associated with USA Gymnastics or the US Olympic Committee? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: I can. They began, as I mentioned in a discussion that they had when they met at a bar in 2015, where Mr. Penny and Mr. Abbott discussed a future job opening, Head of Security at the US Olympic Committee, that Mr. Penny expected to occur. That initial discussion led to Mr. Abbott's interest in the position. And then there are ongoing discussions between the two of them, as we outlined in the report, in emails that we've seen, where Mr. Abbott expresses his interest in the job. And equally troubling, acknowledges that it would be inappropriate for him and a conflict of interest for him to pursue the position because of the ongoing Nassar investigation. Yet, as we found in 2017, that is precisely what he did in applying for the job, which he was never ultimately interviewed for. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA): And who initiated the discussion about employment prospects? Was that an opportunity dangled by Mr. Penny? Or was it solicited by Mr. Abbott? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: That was an opportunity mentioned first by Mr. Penny, because of his understanding that there might be a future retirement or an upcoming retirement at the US Olympic Committee. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA): So just to be clear, Mr. Penny, the Chief Executive at USA Gymnastics, while there is an ongoing FBI inquiry into gross misconduct, criminal activity and sexual abuse by at least one USA Gymnastics employee, raises with the Special Agent in Charge at the field office that is steering this investigation, the prospect of potentially lucrative and prestigious employment at a parallel organization where Mr. Penny may have influence. Is that correct? Inspector General Michael Horowitz: That's correct. And at the same time, writing in emails for example, how he's looking for additional information about the Nassar investigation and events as they occur. 4:46:06 Inspector General Michael Horowitz: The challenge on Mr. Abbott, with regard to the criminal issue here, which is 18 USC 208, which is the federal criminal statute is a, I think I mentioned this earlier, challenging one and that's being generous with speaking about how it's written to determine whether there was a criminal violation. The challenge here was, and I'm focused on the law here as to how 208 is because Mr. Abbott was looking for a job at the US Olympic Committee, and Mr. Penny was employed by the US Gymnastics Federation Association, two different entities, that situation is not clearly covered by 208. No matter how clear it would be to a layperson the interactions between those two entities. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD238: Losing Afghanistan

13 september 2021 | 97 min

The war in Afghanistan is over. In this episode, we document how and why the Biden administration finally admitted defeat in our 20 year attempt to create a new government in Afghanistan and we take a hard look at the lessons we need to learn. Afghanistan is a country in a far away land, but there are disturbing similarities between the Afghanistan government that just collapsed and our own. We'd be wise not to ignore them. Executive Producer: Rachel Passer Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : January 6: The Capitol Riot : Minerals are the New Oil : The Afghanistan War : The Costs of For-Profit War How We Got Here Craig Whitlock. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Patrick Tucker. August 18, 2021. . Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley. August 17, 2021. . Eric Schmitt and Jennifer Steinhauer. July 30, 2021. . Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh. December 9, 2019. . Mark Landler and James Risen. July 25, 2017. . John F. Harris. October 15, 2001. . The Evacuation: Those Left Behind William Mauldin. September 2, 2021. . Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni. August 29, 2021. . Sami Sadat. August 25, 2021. . Marjorie Censer. August 18, 2021. . Siobhan Hughes. August 18, 2021. . Alex Sanz and Tammy Webber. August 18, 2021. . Seth Moulton. June 04, 2021. Contractors in Afghanistan Matt Taibbi. August 18, 2021. . Jack Detsch. August 16, 2021. . Matt Stoller. July 15, 2021. . Lynzy Billing. May 12, 2021. . Oren Liebermann. March 29, 2021. . Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. [Regulations.gov(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations.gov). Aaron Mehta. Oct 25, 2016. . Jared Serbu. August 22, 2016. . . Money: Lost and Gained David Moore. August 23, 2021. . Lee Fang. August 20, 2021. . Anna Massoglia and Julia Forrest. August 20, 2021. . Stephen Losey. April 16, 2021. . Eli Clifton. February 16, 2021. . Open Secrets. 2021. Open Secrets. 2021. Laws Sponsor: Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Status: Became Public Law No: 116-92 on December 20, 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 Law Outline GENERAL PROVISIONS EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM Sec. 401: Amends the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expand eligibility to include Afghans who worked not only for the US Government for more than 1 year but also our allies as an off-base interpreter or if they performed "activities for United States military stationed at International Security Assistance Force (or any successor name for such Force). Increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to Afghan partners by 8,000, for a total of 34,500 allocated since December 19, 2014. Sec. 402: Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of state to jointly waive for 1 year (maximum 2 years with an extension) the requirement that Afghan partners eligible for SIVs get a medical exam before they can receive their visa. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to create a process to make sure Afghan SIV holders get a medical exam within 30 days of entry into the United States. Sec. 403: Allows the surviving spouse or child or employee of the United States Government abroad to be eligible for immigration into the United States if the employee worked for our government for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. It also expands entry permissions for Afghan SIV applicants in addition to those who have already been approved. This is retroactive to June 30, 2021. Policies for Visa Processing: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S Department of State -- Bureau of Consular Affairs. Audio Sources August 18, 2021 General Mark Milley: The time frame of rapid collapse that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks to months, and even years following our departure, there was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days. Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. These plans were coordinated, synchronized and rehearsed to deal with these various scenarios. One of those contingencies is what we are executing right now. As I said before, there's plenty of time to do AARs(After Action Reviews) and key lessons learned and to delve into these questions with great detail. But right now is not that time. Right now, we have to focus on this mission, because we have soldiers at risk. And we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk. This is personal and we're going to get them out. July 8, 2021 Sound Clips 01:30 President Biden: When I announced our drawdown in April, I said we would be out by September, and we're on track to meet that target. Our military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31. The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way, prioritizing the safety of our troops as they depart 3:40 President Biden: Together with our NATO allies and partners, we have trained and equipped nearly 300,000 current serving members of the military, the Afghan national security force, and many beyond that are no longer serving. Add to that hundreds of thousands more Afghan national defense and security forces trained over the last two decades. 04:04 President Biden: We provided our Afghan partners with all the tools, let me emphasize, all the tools -- training, equipment -- of any modern military. We provided advanced weaponry, and we're going to continue to provide funding and equipment and we'll ensure they have the capacity to maintain their Air Force. 5:54 President Biden: We're also going to continue to make sure that we take on Afghan nationals who worked side by side with US forces, including interpreters and translators. Since we're no longer going to have military there after this, we're not going to need them and they'll have no jobs. We're [sic] also going to be vital to our efforts. they've been very vital, and so their families are not exposed to danger as well. We've already dramatically accelerated the procedure time for Special Immigrant Visas to bring them to the United States. Since I was inaugurated on January 20, we've already approved 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas to come to the United States. Up to now, fewer than half have exercised the right to do that. Half have gotten on aircraft and come commercial flights and come and other half believe they want to stay, at least thus far. We're working closely with Congress to change the authorization legislation so that we can streamline the process of approving those visas. And those who have stood up for the operation to physically relocate 1000s of Afghans and their families before the US military mission concludes so that, if they choose, they can wait safely outside of Afghanistan, while their US visas are being processed. 8:13 President Biden: For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months, or just one more year, I asked them to consider the lessons of recent history. In 2011, the NATO allies and partners agreed that we would end our combat mission in 2014. In 2014, some argued one more year. So we kept fighting. We kept taking casualties. In 2015, the same, and on and on. Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that just one more year of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution, but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It's up to the Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country. Others are more direct. Their argument is that we should stay with the Afghans and Afghanistan indefinitely. In doing so they point to the fact that we we have not taken losses in this last year. So they claim that the cost of just maintaining the status quo is minimal. 9:19 President Biden: But that ignores the reality, and the facts that already presented on the ground in Afghanistan when I took office. The Taliban is at its strongest militarily since 2001. The number of US forces in Afghanistan had been reduced to a bare minimum. And the United States and the last administration made an agreement that they have to with the Taliban remove all our forces by May 1 of this year. That's what I inherited. That agreement was the reason the Taliban had ceased major attacks against US forces. 9:55 President Biden: If in April, I had instead announced that the United States was going to go back on that agreement, made by the last administration, the United States and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, the Taliban would have again begun to target our forces. The status quo was not an option. Staying would have meant US troops taking casualties, American men and women back in the middle of a civil war, and we would run the risk of having to send more troops back in Afghanistan to defend our remaining troops. Once that agreement with the Taliban had been made, staying with a bare minimum force was no longer possible. 10:34 President Biden: So let me ask those who want us to stay: how many more? How many 1000s more Americans' daughters and sons are you willing to risk? How long would you have them stay? Already we have members of our military whose parents fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Would you send their children and their grandchildren as well? Would you send your own son or daughter? After 20 years, a trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of 1000s of Afghan National Security and Defence Forces. 2,448 Americans killed, 20,722 more wounded, and untold 1000s coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. 11:51 President Biden: Today the terrorist threat has metastasized beyond Afghanistan. So, we are repositioning our resources and adapting our counterterrorism posture to meet the threats where they are now: significantly higher in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 12:07 President Biden: But make no mistake, our military and intelligence leaders are confident they have the capabilities to protect the homeland and our interests from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from Afghanistan. We're developing a counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed at any direct threat to the United States in the region and act quickly and decisively if needed. 12:38 President Biden: We also need to focus on shoring up America's core strengths to meet the strategic competition competition with China and other nations that is really going to determine our future. 14:58 Reporter: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? President Biden: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops, 300,000. Well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. 15:45 President Biden: Do I trust the Taliban? No, but I trust the capacity of the Afghan military who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war. 18:07 Reporter: Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse President Biden: That is not true 18:53 President Biden: And I want to make clear what I made clear to Ghani, that we are not going to walk away and not sustain their ability to maintain that force. We are. We're going to also work to make sure we help them in terms of everything from food necessities and other things in the region. But there is not a conclusion that in fact, they cannot defeat the Taliban. I believe the only way there's going to be -- this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community -- the only way there's only going to be peace and secure in Afghanistan, is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and they make a judgement as to how they can make peace. And the likelihood there's going to be one unified government in Afghanistan, controlling the whole country is highly unlikely. 21:30 Reporter: Mr. President, how serious was the corruption among the Afghanistan government to this mission failing there? President Biden: First of all, the mission hasn't failed yet. 22:00 President Biden: There were going to be negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan national security forces, and the Afghan government that didn't come to fruition. So the question now is where do they go from here? The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. 23:20 Reporter: Mr. President, "speed is safety," as you just said in your remarks. Are you satisfied with the timeline of relocating Afghan nationals? Is it happening quickly enough to your satisfaction if it may not happen until next month at the end? President Biden: It has already happened, there have already been people, about 1000 people have gotten on aircraft and come to the United States already on commercial aircraft. So as I said, there's over 2500 people, that as from January to now, have have gotten those visas and only half decided that they wanted to leave. The point is that I think the whole process has to be speeded up -- period -- in terms of being able to get these visas. Reporter: Why can't the US evacuate these Afghan translators to the United States to await their visa processing as some immigrants of the southern border have been allowed to? President Biden: Because the law doesn't allow that to happen. And that's why we're asking the Congress to consider changing the law. April 14, 2021 Sound Clips 00:38 President Biden: I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt -- the Treaty room in the White House -- the same spot where in October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls, that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon and made hallowed ground in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would never forget. We went to Afghanistan in 2001, to root out al Qaeda to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear, the cause was just, our NATO allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress. More than seven years later, in 2008 weeks before we swore the oath of office -- President Obama and I were about to swear -- President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged, mountainous region on the border of Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country. And that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan Government. I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that, we accomplished that objective. I said, along with others, we would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did. And we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment into form. And that's exactly what happened Osama bin Laden was gone. That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to Bin Laden a decade ago. And we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. Al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. With the terror threat now in many places, keeping 1000s of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdraw and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. 5:01 President Biden: When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all US forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited. That commitment is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government. And that means something. So in keeping with that agreement, and with our national interest, the United States will begin our final withdrawal beginning on May 1 of this year. 8:11 President Biden: You all know that less than 1% of Americans serve in our Armed Forces. The remaining 99%, we owe them. We owe them. They've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. March 10, 2021 Speaker: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Sound Clips John Sopko: But right now, that state is under threat. In the wake of the February 2020 withdrawal agreement, all is not well. Compromise appears in short supply on either side. Taliban attacks have actually increased since the agreement was signed. Assassination of prominent officials, activists, journalists, aid workers and others have also increased, including an unsuccessful attack on one of the female members of the peace negotiating team. And the Taliban offensive on Kandahar city last October, as peace negotiations were ongoing, may well have succeeded, were it not for U.S. air support. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have achieved little for Afghanistan so far, and only time will tell as to whether the new Biden administration initiative will bear fruit. And the Afghan people's fears for its own government survival are exacerbated by the knowledge of how dependent their country is on foreign military and financial support. John Sopko: Another equally serious threat to Afghanistan’s stability has also largely been ignored as we focus on the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is the provision of last year's U.S.-Taliban agreement that stipulates that in addition to the departure of U.S. and coalition troops, or non-diplomatic civilian personnel: private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting service personnel also must leave the country by May 1. Should this come to passSIGAR and many others believe this may be more devastating to the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces than the withdrawal of our remaining troops. Why is that? Because the Afghan government relies heavily on these foreign contractors and trainers to function. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 there are over 18,000 Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan, including 6000 Americans, and 7,000 3rd country nationals, 40% of whom are responsible for logistics, maintenance, or training tasks. Now, it is well known that the Afghan security forces need these contractors to maintain their equipment, manage supply chains, and train their military and police to operate the advanced equipment that we have purchased for them. For example, as of December, the Afghan National Army was completing just under 20% of its own maintenance work orders, well below the goal of 80% that was set and the 51% that they did in 2018. So that's actually going down. The Afghan National Police were just as bad if not worse, undertaking only 12% of their own maintenance work against a target of 35% and less than the 16% that we reported in our 2019 high risk list. Additionally, and more troubling. The Department of Defense does train, advise and assist command air, or commonly called TAC air recently reported that since late 2019, they have reduced their personnel in Afghanistan by 94%, and that the military drawdown now requires near total use of contract support to maintain the Afghan Air fleet. They assess that quote “further drawdown in the associated closure basis will effectively end all in country aviation training contracts in Afghanistan.” Again, why is this significant? Why do we view this as a high risk? Namely because contractors currently provide 100% of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force, UAE 60 helicopters and CE 130 cargo aircraft and a significant portion of Afghans Light Combat Support aircraft. TAC air this January gave a bleak assessment, namely, that no Afghan airframe can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months in the absence of contractor support. John Sopko: Continued funding for U.S. reconstruction programs aimed at promoting economic development, rule of law, respect for human rights, good governance and security for the Afghan people may be more significant, because it may be the primary lever left for the US and other donors to influence that country. It appears that even the Taliban understand Afghanistan's dire need for foreign assistance. Because, as one of the few commitments that the US had to make last year was, “to seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, with the new post settlement, Afghan Islamic government.” Now how much the donor community wishes to stay involved will of course depend on what that government looks like and how it behaves. Numerous officials, including then Secretary of State Pompeo and Ambassador Halley, have stated that the US will be able to advance its human rights goals, including the rights of women and girls with the Taliban by leveraging or conditioning this much needed financial assistance. But unfortunately, as SIGAR has long reported, even when conditionality involved only dealing with the Afghan government, donors do not have a stellar record of successfully utilizing that conditionality to influence Afghan behavior. John Sopko: Today our report suggests the donor community should realize the Afghan government is focused on a single goal, its survival. Afghanistan is more dependent on international support than ever before. It may not be an overstatement that if foreign assistance is withdrawn and peace negotiations fail, Taliban forces could be at the gates of Kabul in short order. February 19, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Afghanistan Study Group officials: Kelly A. Ayotte, Co-Chair; General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. (Retired), Co-Chair Nancy Lindborg, Co-Chair Former President and CEO of the US Institute for Peace Former Assistant Administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at USAID During the mid-Obama years. Sound Clips Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I'd also like to take a moment to thank the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace for the support and expertise they provided to the study group during the course of its work. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill Congress led by Senator Graham Senator Patrick Leahy and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of state foreign ops and related programs. They tasked the independent and bipartisan Afghanistan study group to quote, consider the implications of a peace settlement or the failure to reach a settlement on US policy, resources and commitments in Afghanistan. After nearly nine months of review and consultation with current and former US and Afghan government officials, allies and partners and other key stakeholders, the Afghanistan study group issued its final report earlier this month. Kelly Ayotte: We recommend that US troops remain beyond may 1. We believe a precipitous withdrawal of US and international troops in May, would be catastrophic for Afghanistan, leading to civil war, and allow the reconstitution of terror groups which threaten the United States within an 18 to 36 month period. Kelly Ayotte: Let me be clear, although we recommend that our troops remain beyond may 1, we propose a new approach toward Afghanistan, which aligns our policies, practices and messaging across the United States government to support the Afghan peace process, rather than prosecute a war. Our troops would remain not to fight a forever war, but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again, for terrorists who threaten the United States of America. General Joseph F. Dunford: Do we need to increase forces if the Taliban don't accept an extension past the first of May, and if they then would re initiate attacks against US forces? and Chairman, we heard exactly what you heard. In the fall. What we were told by commanders on the ground in the department of fence was that 4500 US forces, in addition to the NATO forces that are there was the minimum level to address both the mission as well as protection of our forces in the context of the conditions that existed in the fall in as you've highlighted, those conditions have only gotten worse since the fall so in in our judgment 2500 would not be adequate. Should the Taliban re initiate attacks against the United States January 28, 2020 Witness: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Sound Clips John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command, all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success, and that goes up. John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time,be cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that onus, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. John Sopko: Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. September 21, 2011 Witnesses: Charles Tiefer: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Clark Kent Ervin: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Sound Clips 1:11:30 Charles Tiefer: Our private security in Afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoffs to the Taliban. Our report has the first official statement that it’s the second-largest source of money for the Taliban. Sen. Carl Levin: After drugs. Charles Tiefer: After drugs, that’s right. 1:25:18 Clark Kent Ervin: It’s critical that the government have a choice, and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable, organic capacity on the part of these three agencies to perform missions themselves, so the next time there’s a contingency, the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in-house and the determination can be made whether it’s more effective to do it either way, whether it’s cheaper to do it either way. As we said at the inception, right now the government doesn’t have an option. Contractors are the default option because they’re the only option. October 7, 2001 President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: close terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. ** October 25, 2001 Witness: Colin Powell: Secretary of State Sound Clip 27:00 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. Executive Producer Recommendations Krystal Kyle and Friends. August 21, 2021. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD237: Hunting Domestic Terrorists

30 augusti 2021 | 119 min

In the aftermath of January 6th, Congress passed a "Capitol Security" law and is considering other measures to deal with "domestic terrorists". In this episode, after we examine the new law, we take a look at the domestic terrorism related bills making their way through Congress, we analyze the laws already on the books which allow way too many Americans to be branded as "domestic terrorist" suspects, and we take a close look at the Biden administrations disturbing plans for investigating, preventing, and prosecuting American citizens for crimes they haven't committed yet. Executive Producer: Christopher Grizzle Executive Producer: Jose Huerta Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: [email protected] Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or [email protected] Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : January 6: The Capitol Riot : The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders : The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump : Social Media Censorship Domestic Terrorism Policy and Strategy U.S. Department of Homeland Security. August 13, 2021. . U.S. National Security Council. June 2021. . The White House. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. May 11, 2021. . U.S. Department of Homeland Security. September 19, 2019. No date. U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository. U.S. Department of Defense Security Cooperation Agency. No date. . Perspectives on the "Domestic War on Terror" Branko Marcetic. July 28, 2021. Jacobin. Ken Bensinger and Jessica Garrison. July 20, 2021. BuzzFeed News. Harsha Panduranga. June 21, 2021. Los Angeles Times. Glenn Greenwald. June 2, 2021. Glenn Greenwald Substack. Faiza Patel. February 16, 2021. Brennan Center for Justice. January 6 Capitol Riot Aftermath Natalia Gurevich. August 24, 2021. KCBS Radio. Barbara Sprunt. July 27, 2021. NPR. Glenn Greenwald. July 8, 2021. Glenn Greenwald Substack. United States Capitol Police. July 6, 2021. Lexi Lonas. June 30, 2021. The Hill. Jacob Pramuk. May 20, 2021. CNBC. Corporate and Government Partnerships Rachael Levy. August 15, 2021. Anti-Defamation League. July 26, 2021. Danny O'Brien and Rainey Reitman. December 14, 2020. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Gillian Friedman. December 10, 2020. New York Times. Shannon Souza. October 12, 2020. The Ascent: A Motley Fool Service. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Last edited March 30, 2012. SourceWatch. Valens Global. Laws Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 Law Outline Emergency funding appropriated... $600 million for the National Guard $500 million for the "Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid" account Emergency funding appropriated... $25 million for Refugee and Entrant Assistance for Afghans AND Emergency funding appropriated... $11.6 million for the House of Representatives for coronavirus related expenses. $ 8 million for the Senate Sergeant at Arms for coronavirus related expenses $346 thousand for the families of late members of Congress Ronald Wright and Alcee Hastings. Emergency funding appropriated... $37.5 million for "Salaries" account for January 6 related expenses $3.6 million is for retention bonuses $6.9 million for hazard pay $1.4 million for a wellness program for the Capitol Police officers $33 million for "General Expenses" account for January 6 related expenses At least $5 million must be spent on "reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies" At least $4.8 million for protective details for Congress $2.6 million for physical protection barriers and other civil disturbance unit equipment $2.5 million to the US Marshalls Service for providing counseling to Capitol Police officers. $800,000 for coronavirus expenses $35.4 million for mutual aid and training $9 million for payments to other local law enforcement partners who responded on January 6 Leaves $25 million for Capitol Police training Emergency funding appropriated... $22 million for coronavirus expenses Emergency funding appropriated to the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol Police... $300 million to repair January 6th damage $281 million for windows, doors, and enhances physical security $17 million for security cameras Sec. 310: No Permanent Fencing No funds now or in the future can be used to install "permanent, above ground fencing around the perimeter, or any portion thereof, of the United States Capitol Grounds. Emergency funding appropriated... $100 million for "humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees" $500 million for the "United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund" Extension and Modification of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (See episode CD238) STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE Emergency funding appropriated... $1.1 million for reimbursements for protecting Joe Biden between his election and inauguration Sponsor: James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) Status: Signed into law, 2001 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). August 24, 2021. United States Department of the Treasury. FinCEN. December 2020. United States Department of the Treasury. United States Department of the Treasury. February 10, 2011. Douglas N. Greenburg, John Roth, and Katherine A. Sawyer. June 2007. Review of Banking and Financial Services Bills Sponsor: Doris Matsui (D-CA) Status: Introduced, May 28, 2021 Sponsor: Mazie Hirono (D-HI) Status: Enacted, March 23, 2021 Sponsor: Lauren Boebert (R-CO) Status: Introduced to the House, March 26, 2021 Sponsor: Richard Durbin (D-IL) Status: Sent to the Senate for consideration March 25, 2021 Sponsor: Richard Durbin (D-IL) Status: Introduced, March 24, 2021 Sponsor: Eleanor Norton (D-DC) Status: Introduced, February 1, 2021 Sponsor: Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Status: Introduced January 28, 2021 Sponsor: Brad Schneider (D-IL) Status: Introduced January 19, 2021 Sponsor: Adam Schiff (D-CA) Status: Died in 116th Congress The Hearings July 27, 2021 Testimony heard from 37:00 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: Domestic terrorism is the most lethal and persistent terrorism related threat to the United States today. That is why we are requesting $131 million to support innovative methods to prevent domestic terrorism, while respecting privacy, civil rights and civil liberties. 2:27:00 Sen. Jon Ossoff (GA): According to DHS, FBI data from 2015 to 2019, 65 Americans were tragically killed in domestic terrorist attacks. And I want to put that in context by referring to CDC homicide data over the same period of 2015 to 2019. 94,636 Americans killed by homicide over that same period. 2:27:15 Sen. Jon Ossoff (GA): What leads you to the conclusion that the level of threat from domestic violent extremists and the level of threat posed by potential domestic terrorists has risen to the extent that it justifies this bureaucratic focus and this budgetary focus you've requested, for example, resources to establish a new dedicated domestic terrorism branch within DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 2:28:00 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: What we see is an increasing amount of social media traffic that is based on ideologies of hate, and extremism, false narratives, and an increasing connectivity to violence - intention to commit violent acts. And so that is what causes us to conclude that this is the greatest terrorist related threat that we face in our homeland today. 2:28:15 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: What we seek to do is more effectively disseminate what we learn about those trends - mindful of rights of privacy and civil rights and civil liberties - disseminate that information to our state, local, tribal, territorial partners on the one hand, and importantly, to equip local communities, to empower them to address the threat in their own neighborhoods. July 22, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Department of Homeland Security officials: Stephanie Dobitsch, Deputy Undersecretary, Office of Intelligence and Analysis Jeremy Sheridan, Assistant Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Secret Service; and John Eisert, Assistant Director, Investigative Programs, Homeland Security Investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): Some of the online platforms and online tech allow easy access for thousands, if not millions of users to donate money through online campaigns. For example, crowdfunding through PayPal, GoFundMe, and Amazon have become popular ways in recent years for extremist groups to raise money. To put this in context, according to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, from about 2005 to 2015, just about every extremist group they tracked featured a PayPal button on their website. Now, even though PayPal and other payment processing platforms became aware of the issue and began to ban extremists from their flat platforms, which is a great first step, these groups have persevered and maintained a strong online presence. Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): But just as nefarious groups have changed their fundraising tactics after crackdowns by payment processors like PayPal, when law enforcement begins following and cracking down on illicit Bitcoin use, terrorist fundraisers advise supporters to use other cryptocurrencies to avoid detection. This was the case of a pro ISIS website that requested its supporters send money via Monero, another cryptocurrency instead of Bitcoin because of its privacy and safety features. Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): But we know we have an uphill battle. Our subcommittee really stands ready to help the department with what you need. If you need changes to legislation, if you need resources, we want to hear more from you, not less. Rep. Tom Malinowski (NJ): I hear the phrase that it enables the democratization of currency. And every time someone says we're democratizing something, it kind of ends the conversation. That's sort of good. I don't really understand what that means in this context. I think it's an abstraction, whereas ransomware attacks are not an abstraction. They're hurting people, every single day. So I'm not sure if I see it. And I think we do need to expand this conversation to ask that fundamental question, whether the challenges that you are facing - that we are asking you to deal with - in protecting us against all of these social ills, are challenges that are necessary, inescapable and inevitable. And I think we have to ask, what is the good? What is the positive social value of this phenomenon that is also creating all of this harm? And you know, I think when you look at the history of how we built modern economies in the United States and around the world, we started three or 400 years ago with multiple currencies that were unregulated and not controlled by governments and in every modern economy, we built what we have today when government decided no, we're going to have one currency that is issued and regulated by government. And I think I could ask you - we don't have time - how we can better regulate cryptocurrency, but I think if we regulated it, it wouldn't be crypto anymore. And so what would be the point? So I come back to the question, should this be allowed? Thank you. I yield back. and March 3, 2021 Testimony was heard from: Robert Salesses, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security at the U.S. Department of Defense Major General William Walker, Commanding General of the DC National Guard Jill Sanborn, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice 06:42 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat and concluding violence driven by white supremacy and anti-government groups is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that state and local law enforcement understands the threats that American communities face must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. , March 24, 2021 Testimony was heard from: Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Michigan Aaron Ford, Attorney General, Nevada John Chisholm, District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): The post 9/11 era of security where the threats come from abroad is over. In the 20 years of the post 9/11 era, they came to an end on January 6th, the new reality is that we have to come to terms with is that it's our extremists here at home, seeking to explain internal divisions that pose the greatest threat. , February 25, 2021 Testimony was heard from: Iman Boukadoum, Senior Manager, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks, Executive Director, Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross, CEO of Valens Global Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships, the use of information sharing authorities, and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popularize the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp Auschwitz that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and foment further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did nod to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to FinCEN, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. June 15, 2021 Testimony was heard from: General Charles E. Flynn, Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific Lieutenant General Walter E. Piatt, Director of the Army Staff, U.S. Army Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Chris Wray: Among the things that we've taken away from this experience are a few. One, as you heard me say in response to an earlier question, we need to develop better human sources, right, because if we can get better human sources, then we can better separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. Two, we need better data analytics. The volume, as you said, the volume of this stuff is, is just massive, and the ability to have the right tools to get through it and sift through it in a way that is, again, separating the wheat from the chaff is key. And then the third point that I would make is we are rapidly having to contend with the issue of encryption. So what I mean by that is, yes, there might be chatter on social media. But then what we have found and this is true in relation to January 6th, in spades, but it was also true over the summer in some of the violence that occurred there. Individuals will switch over to encrypted platforms for the really significant, really revealing communications. And so we've got to figure out a way to get into those communications or we're going to be constantly playing catch up in our effort to separate as I said, the wheat from the chaff on social media. Chris Wray: As for social media, I think there's, there's it's understandable that there's a lot of confusion on this subject we do not we have very specific policies that Ben at the Department for a long time that govern our ability to use social media and when we have an authorized purpose and proper predication, there's a lot of things we can do on social media. And we do do and we aggressively do but what we can't do, what we can't do on social media is without proper predication, and an authorized purpose, just monitor, just in case on social media. Now, if the policies should be changed to reflect that, that might be one of the important lessons learned coming out of this whole experience. But that's not something that that currently the FBI has the either the authority or certainly the resources frankly, to do. Executive producer contact information Robyn Thirkill : @Flossies_Farmstead Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot

26 juli 2021 | 131 min

Congress has conducted at least eleven bipartisan hearings to investigate the security failures that permitted a mob of American citizens to riot inside the Capitol Building and successfully disrupt Congress while they certified the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021. In this episode, hear key highlights pulled from over 30 hours of testimony to understand exactly what happened that day. Executive Producer: Forrest Pttman Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes , HBO Lame Duck Bills U.S. Department of the Treasury Articles/Documents Article: by Madison Hall, Skye Gould, Rebecca Harrington, Jacob Shamsian, Azmi Haroun, Taylor Ardrey, and Erin Snodgrass, Insider, July 23, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, July 20, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, July 15, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, July 15, 2021 Article: By Marshall Cohen, CNN, July 7, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, July 2, 2021 Article: by Aaron Keller, Law & Crime, June 23, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, May 24, 2021 Article: by Jordan Fischer, Eric Flack, Stephanie Wilson, WUSA9, May 18, 2021 Article: By Kelli Dugan, Cox Media Group National Content Desk, 11NEWS, April 7, 2021 Article: by Jacob Shamsian, Insider, March 1, 2021 By United States Department of Justice, January 29, 2021 Article: By Kyle Rempfer, AirForceTimes, January 22, 2021 Article: By Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel, The Washington Post, January 11, 2021 Article: by Alex Kasprak, Snopes, January 7, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: by Christine Adams, The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: by AMSNBS, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: by The Washington Post, 2021 Article: by Matt Blitz, WAMU 88.5, November 27, 2020 Article: by Lily Hay Newman, Wired, November 27, 2020 Additional Resources U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 28, 2021 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee on Rules and Administration U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 27, 2021 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 11, 2021 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 8, 2021 Video: F.B.I., January 5, 2021 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, June 16, 2021 Witnesses: Michael Bolton Inspector General of the US Capitol Police Transcript: 36:40 Michael Bolton: To me the biggest failure is that because we have allowed certain elements within the Capitol Police to be autonomous, they conduct their own training, okay? That's the issue. Whereas you if you have a Training Services Bureau and let's call it an office of training that is fully incorporated, they handle all the training they conducted. They make sure you get the training, they hold your officials accountable, your people doing your training, guess what, we're sending a letter to the chief and they can no longer work until they get required or what have you. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 15, 2021 Witnesses: Lt. General Walter Piatt Director of the Army Staff General Charles Flynn Commanding General of the US Army Pacific Chris Wray FBI Director Transcript: 30:41 Lt. General Walter Piatt: My involvement with our response to this emergency began shortly after entering the Secretary of the Army's office at 2:20pm to provide a report of a suspicious package. While I was there, a panic call came in reporting several explosions in the city. To understand the situation, to indentify, what was needed from the army Secretary McCarthy convened a conference call. During this call DC and Capitol authorities frantically requested urgent and immediate support to the Capitol. We all immediately understood the gravity of the situation. Secretary McCarthy went down the hall to seek approval from the Acting Secretary of Defense. Before departing, she directed me to have the staff prepare a response. I communicated this on the conference call. But those are more and more convinced that I was denying their request, which I did not have the authority to do. Despite clearly stating three times that we are not denying your request, we need to prepare a plan for when the Secretary of the Army gains approval. 1:46:02 General Charles Flynn: There's four things in planning that we could have done. And we should have done. The first one there should have been clearly a lead federal agency designated. The second one is we should have had an integrated security plan. The third one is and much of this has been talked about already is information and intelligence sharing on criminal activities before the sixth of January. And then the fourth one would have been, we should have pre-federalized certain National Guard forces so that they could have immediately been moved to the Capitol and had those authorities in place before this happened. 2:09:30 Rep. Kweisi Mfume (MD): So that's what we are trying to do, keep our republic and to keep it from those who tried to overthrow this government who wanted to kill members of Congress, who wanted to hang Mike Pence. 2:43:37 Rep. Michael Cloud (TX): You mentioned domestic terrorism that this would qualify as that, would the riots that we saw across the cities for nights and nights and weeks and weeks on even months on end, qualify as domestic terrorism as well? Chris Wray: We've been treating both as domestic terrorism and investigating both through our Joint Terrorism Task Force. 2:51:19 Chris Wray: Among the things that we've taken away from this experience are a few. One, as you heard me say in response to an earlier question, we need to develop better human sources, right, because if we can get better human sources, then we can better separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. Two, we need better data analytics. The volume, as you said, the volume of this stuff is, is just massive, and the ability to have the right tools to get through it and sift through it in a way that is, again, separating the wheat from the chaff is key. And then the third point that I would make is we are rapidly having to contend with the issue of encryption. So what I mean by that is, yes, there might be chatter on social media. But then what we have found and this is true in relation to January 6th, in spades, but it was also true over the summer in some of the violence that occurred there. Individuals will switch over to encrypted platforms for the really significant, really revealing communications. And so we've got to figure out a way to get into those communications or we're going to be constantly playing catch up in our effort to separate as I said, the wheat from the chaff on social media. 3:01:00 Chris Wray: We consider the attack on capital on January 6 to be a form of domestic terrorism. 3:16:00 Chris Wray: As for social media, I think there's, there's it's understandable that there's a lot of confusion on this subject we do not we have very specific policies that Ben at the Department for a long time that govern our ability to use social media and when we have an authorized purpose and proper predication, there's a lot of things we can do on social media. And we do do and we aggressively do but what we can't do, what we can't do on social media is without proper predication, and an authorized purpose, just monitor, just in case on social media. Now, if the policies should be changed to reflect that, that might be one of the important lessons learned coming out of this whole experience. But that's not something that that currently the FBI has the either the authority or certainly the resources frankly, to do. 4:06:00 Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Has anyone been charged with inciting an insurrection? Chris Wray: I think I responded to an earlier question. I don't believe that that has been one of the charges us so far. But again, with that many cases, I want to build a little room for the fact that I might not know all the cases. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): So right as of right now, the answer would be no, fair to say? Chris Wray: That's my understanding. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. Has anybody been charged with sedition to your knowledge? Chris Wray: Same answer. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. No, again, Has anybody been charged with treason? Chris Wray: I don't believe so. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay, has anyone been charged with illegal possession of a firearm inside the Capitol? On that day? Chris Wray: I believe there has been at least one instance of someone arrested with a firearm in the Capitol. And there have been a number of arrests of individuals either en route to the Capitol or near the Capitol for the for the siege. 4:11:00 Rep. James Comer (KY): On December 31, Mayor browser requested DC National Guard assistance with the planned protest for January fifth and sixth, correct? Lt. General Walter Piatt: Correct, sir. Rep. James Comer (KY):And was that request for assistant ultimately approved by the Secretary of Army? Lt. General Walter Piatt: It was approved by the Acting Secretary of Defense as well. Rep. James Comer (KY):Were restrictions placed on that authority upon the request of Mayor browser and if so, what were those restrictions? Lt. General Walter Piatt: She had requested that they be unarmed and it did not take a place in any law enforcement activities. Hearing: , Committee on Oversight and Reform, May 12, 2021 Witnesses: Chris Miller Former Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Contee Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department Transcript: 00:22 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Today the committee will examine one of the darkest days in our nation's history. The January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. On that day, a violent mob incited by shameless lies told by a defeated president launched the worst attack on our republic since the Civil War. 00:42 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): We watched as the temple of our democracy, a building whereas familiar with as our own homes, was overrun by a mob bent on murdering the Vice President and members of Congress. 21:21 Chris Miller: I want to remind you and the American public that during that time, there was irresponsible commentary by the media about a possible military coup or that advisors the president were advocating the declaration of martial law. I was also very cognizant of the fears and concerns about the prior use of the military in June 2020 response to protests in the White House. And just before the electoral college certification 10 former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed published in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing inappropriately using the military. No such thing was going to occur and my watch, but these concerns and hysteria about them nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our armed forces to support civilian law enforcement during the electoral college certification. My obligation to the nation was to prevent a constitutional crisis. Historically, military responses to domestic protests have resulted in violations of American civil rights and even in the case the Kent State protests of the Vietnam War, tragic deaths. In short, I fervently believe the military should not be utilized in such scenarios, other than as a last resort, and only when all other assets had been expended. 26:02 Chris Miller: I stand by every decision I made on January 6th and the following days. I want to emphasize that our nation's armed forces are to be deployed for domestic law enforcement only when all civilian assets are expended and only as the absolute last resort. To use them for domestic law enforcement in any other manner is contrary to the constitution and a threat to the Republic. I ask you this consider what the response in Congress in the media had been if I had unilaterally deployed 1000s of troops into Washington DC that morning against the Express wishes of the Mayor and the Capitol Police who indicated they were prepared. 40:52 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th, did President Trump as the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces call you during the January 6 attack to ensure the capital was being secured? Mr. Miller? Chris Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the president to fulfill my constitutional duties. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with President Trump at all as the attack was unfolding? Chris Miller: On January 6th? yes. Chris Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to I had all the authority I needed and knew what had to happen. I knew what had to happen. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with Vice President Pence during the attack? Yes or no? Chris Miller: Yes. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): According to a defense department timeline, it was Vice President Pence and not President Trump, who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure. And to give you the direction to quote, 'clear the Capitol.' What specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day? Chris Miller: Vice President's not in the chain of command, he did not direct me to clear the capital. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized and was in coordination with local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol. 1:05:28 Chris Miller: I think I'd like to modify my original assessment. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Why am I not surprised about that? Chris Miller: Based on as Chief Contee said, we are getting more information by the day by the minute about what happened and the highlight some other observations that were made. It's clear now that there were organized... Although we're going to find out through the Department of Justice process in the law, and the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the Capitol that day. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time, I'm just asking you the same question you've answered before. Did did the President's remarks incite members to march, the people in the crowd to march on the Capitol, or did they not? Chris Miller: Well, he clearly said offered that they should march on the Capitol. So it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time. Let me just share with the committee what you have said before. This is your quote. This is your quote. What anyone? Would anybody have marched on the Capitol and tried to overrun the Capitol without the president speech? I think it's pretty much definitive. That would not have happened. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I think now, I would say that this is not the unitary factor at all. What's that? Chris Miller: I would like to offer I have reassessed. It was not the unitary factor at all. There was no...it's seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In your testimony for today. Reclaiming my time again, for your written testimony for today. For today, this morning, you stated the following about the President's quote, I personally believe his comments encouraged the protesters that day. So this is that this is that there's a very recent reversal of your of your testimony. Chris Miller: Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): You're ridiculous. Chris Miller: Thank you for your, your thoughts. I also want to highlight... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): No wait a minute, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. 2:06:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI): Has there been any progress made it all on on? Who would have put these bombs there? Robert Contee: No arrests have been made no suspects identified, working without partners on the federal side. There's been surveillance videos that have been released publicly showing that individual placing the pipe bombs, but no arrests have been made at this point. 3:01:05 Rep. Andrew Clyde (GA): Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. 3:12:18 Sen. Hank Johnson (GA): Were you ordered to delay deployment of troops? Chris Miller: 110% Absolutely not. No, that is not the case. 4:41:42 Chris Miller: If we had a valid request and a necessary requests from your body, I guarantee you that the Department of Defense would have been there in strength as required. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): So when you would acknowledge we lost the battle we lost for the first time since 1814... Chris Miller: Horrifying. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And it was everybody else's fault but DoD. Chris Miller: I absolutely disagree with the statement that it was... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I'm paraphrasing you the only way that makes sense when you say 'you wouldn't do anything differently, you wouldn't do anything differently.' Okay, that implies what I'm saying that it was everybody else's fault in your mind, because it was a catastrophic failure. Chris Miller: And I just had an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and guarantee that the armed forces were used appropriately, and not in a manner that would be seen as extraconstitutional. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) Look, the Constitution is not a treaty of surrender. It affords you the opportunity to do what's necessary to defend the people in the democracy of the United States. I mean, if looked upon the destruction afterwards, looking back, you say, 'well, at least I defended the Constitution' is another perverse way of looking at this. Nothing was DoDs fault. And at least you did, in your own mind, defend what you thought was right for the Constitution. Never mind how many people got hurt and how much damage was done to our government in the meantime. Chris Miller: I will absolutely take that on and take that as a compliment. Because the armed forces of the United States was completely prepared and ready to respond to any valid request from any department or agency or local or federal law enforcement office. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) You lost and you don't have the Intellectual fortitude to own up to your part of the responsibility. And I get it, a lot of people screwed up, you're one of them. I yield scaled back. Madam Chairman. Chris Miller: I respectfully disagree in that. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I was in the room, you weren't. Hearing: , House Committee on Homeland Security: Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism, March 24, 2021 Witnesses: Dana Nessel Attorney General, Michigan Aaron Ford Attorney General, Nevada John Chisholm District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Transcript: 07:19 Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): The post 9/11 era of security where the threats come from abroad is over. In the 20 years of the post 9/11 era, they came to an end on January 6th, the new reality is that we have to come to terms with is that it's our extremists here at home, seeking to explain internal divisions that pose the greatest threat. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, March 3, 2021 Witnesses: Robert Salesses Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security at the U.S. Department of Defense Major General William Walker Commanding General of the DC National Guard Jill Sanborn Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Transcript: 06:42 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat and cluding violence driven by white supremacy and anti government groups is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that state and local law enforcement understands the threats that American communities face must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. 30:19 Robert Salesses: Over the weekend of January 2nd and third, my staff contacted the Secret Service, the Park Police, the marshal service, the FBI, the Capitol Police to determine if they planned to request DoD assistance. None of these law enforcement agencies indicated a need for DoD or DC National Guard Support. 30:45 Robert Salesses: After consultation with the Department of Justice, the Acting Secretary of Defense approved the DC government request for National Guard personnel to support 30 traffic control points and six metro stations from January 5th to the sixth. The Acting Secretary also authorized a 40 person quick reaction force to be readied at Joint Base Andrews. 31:17 Robert Salesses: On January 5, the Acting Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army received a letter from the mayor of DC, stating MPD is prepared and coordinated with its federal partners, namely the Park Police, the Capitol Police and the Secret Service. Based on these communications with federal and local civilian authorities DoD determined that no additional military support was required on January 5th, and 6th. 32:20 Robert Salesses: At approximately 2:30pm, the Secretary of the Army met with the Acting Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders of the Defense Department. After this meeting, the Acting Secretary of Defense determined that all available forces of the DC National Guard were required to reinforce the DC Metropolitan Police and the US Capitol Police and ordered the full mobilization of the DC National Guard at 3:04pm. 33:08 Robert Salesses: After reviewing the DC National Guard's missions, equipping and responsibilities to be performed at the Capitol Complex and supported the Metropolitan Police and Capitol Police, and conferring with the DC Metropolitan Police at their headquarters, at 4:10pm, the Secretary of the Army received the Acting Secretary of Defense's approval at 4:32 and ordered the DC National Guard forces to depart the armory for the Capitol Complex 49:59 Major General William Walker: The District of Columbia National Guard provides support to the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and other federal and district law enforcement agencies in response to planned rallies, marches, protest, and other large scale first amendment activity on a routine basis. The standard component of such support is the stand up of a off site quick reaction for us, an element of guardsmen held in reserve with civil disturbance response equipment, helmets, shields, battons, etc. They are postured to quickly respond to an urgent and immediate need for assistance by civil authorities. The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter to me withheld that authority for me to employ a quick reaction force. Additionally, the Secretary of the Army's memorandum to me required that a concept of operation be submitted to him before the employment of a quick reaction force. I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another. 54:50 Major General William Walker: So the memo was unusual in that it required me to seek authorization from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense, to essentially even protect my guardsmen. So no civil disturbance equipment could be authorized, unless it was came from the Secretary of Defense, now the Secretary of the Army, to his credit, did tell me that I could have force protection equipment with the guardsmen. So we do have helmets. shin guards, vest, we did have that with us. But that came from the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of Defense told me I needed his permission to to escalate to have that kind of protection. 55:50 Major General William Walker: What it says, without my personal authorization, the District of Columbia National Guard has not authorized the following to be issued weapons, ammunition bayonets, batons or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor. Now, again, to be clear, the Secretary of the Army told me to go ahead and issue that equipment. So we never were going to have weapons or ammunition and we no longer have bayonets. But we do have ballistic protection equipment, helmets body armor, and so I did have that with each guardsmen. 57:02 Major General William Walker: And at that time, Chief Conte and Chief Soon passionately pleaded for District of Columbia National Guard to get to the Capitol with all deliberate speed. So the Army senior leaders did not think that it'd look good. It would be a good optic, they further stated that it could incite the crowd. So their best military advice would be to the Secretary of the Army who could not get on the call. So we wanted the Secretary of the Army to join the call, but he was not available. We were told that he was with the Secretary of Defense and not available. But the Army Senior leadership, expressed to Chief Conte, Chief Sohn, Dr. Mitchell, the deputy mayor and others on the call, that it would not be their best military advice to have uniform guardsmen on the Capitol. 58:26 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): General Walker was the issue of optics ever brought up by army leadership when the DC National Guard was deployed during the summer of 2020. Was that discussed? Major General William Walker: It was never discussed. The week of June it was never discussed July 4, when we were supporting the city was never discussed August 28th when we supported the city. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): Did you think that was unusual? Major General William Walker: I did. 1:00:32 Major General William Walker: So I had them ready to go shortly after the phone call. So I brought, at 1500, I directed that the quick reaction for us that was based at Andrews Air Force Base, leave the base, get to the armory at all deliberate speed. I had a police escort bring them to the armory. They returned to the Armory in about 20 minutes. So we had them sitting there waiting. And then, in anticipation of a green light, a go, we put guardsmen on buses, we brought them inside the armory, so nobody would see them putting on the equipment and getting on the buses, and then we just waited to get the approval. And that's why we were able to get to the Capitol in about 18 minutes. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): What time were they on the buses Ready to go? Do you recall? Major General William Walker: By five o'clock, but at five o'clock, I decided, hey, you know, there's got to be an approval coming. So get on the buses, get the equipment on, get on the buses and just wait. And then a few minutes after that we did get the approval. I was on a secure video conference when the army leadership conveyed to me that the Secretary of Defense had authorized the employment of the National Guard at the Capitol. So my timeline has 1708, 5:08pm is when is when we wrote down that we had approval and read was about eight people in the office with me when I got that. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): How many guardsmen were ready. You said write a video earlier and they have gotten 155. So you could have sent 155 much, much earlier, what would have been the impact of sending those 155 right around that two o'clock timeframe? Major General William Walker: Well, based on my experience with the summer and I have 19 years, I have 39 years in the National Guard, and I was in the Florida guard Hurricane Andrew I've been involved in civil disturbances. So I believe that number could have made a difference. We could have helped extend the perimeter and help push back the crowd. 1:13:49 Robert Salesses: The only decision makers on the sixth of January were the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. There was a chain of command from the Secretary of Defense, to Secretary McCarthy to General Walker. That was the chain of command. 1:15:39 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): This morning, you have testified that you received this letter from our secretary McCarthy on January 5, so just the day before the attack on the Capitol. In that letter, did Secretary McCarthy prohibit you from employing the National Guard's quick reaction force without his authorization? Major General William Walker: So I have the letter in front of me, and his letter does not but it is the Secretary of Defense says that I have to use it as a last resort. But the Secretary of the Army told me and it's, I have the letter that I couldn't not use the quick reaction force. It would it would he with I'll just read it. Yeah, 'I withhold authority to approve employment of the District of Columbia National Guard quick reaction force, and will do so only as a last resort, in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of a civil- of a quick reaction for it. 1:16:05 *Major General William Walker:** Now a quick reaction force normally is a command was tool to go help either a civilian agency, but more typically to help the National Guardsmen who are out there in need, need assistance. 1:16:58 Major General William Walker: Just to be clear, the Secretary of Defense said I could use it as a last resort, right. But the Secretary of the Army says that I could only use it after he gave me permission. And only then after a concept of operation. Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Right, and we talked about the chain of command earlier, so your chain of command is both of these gentlemen. In other words, you you didn't have the authority to deploy that quick reaction force based on either the letter or the earlier memo that went from the Secretary of Defense, Acting Secretary defense to the Secretary of the Army. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Yes, sir. 1:17:23 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Yeah, I also thought it was odd and I think you said was unusual and very prescriptive that the January 5th letter required the Secretary of the Army to approve the movement of deployed guardsmen from one traffic control point to another. Did you find that unusual? Major General William Walker: In 19 years I never had that before happened. So on that day, the Metropolitan Police as they would any other day requested that a traffic control point move one block, one block over. No traffic was where they were. So they wanted the traffic control point to move one block. I had to get permission. I told him, I'll get back to you. I contacted Lieutenant General Piatt, who contacted Secretary of the Army, I had to explain where that contractor control point was in relationship to the Capitol. And only then did I get permission to move the three national guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan... Sen. Rob Portman (OH): These are three unarmed National Guardsmen who are helping with traffic control in parts of that Metropolitan Police can do other things. And they were not permitted to move a block away without getting permission from the Secretary of the Army. Is that true? Major General William Walker: That's correct. Yeah. 1:18:52 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): That January 4th memorandum from Acting Secretary Miller to the Army Secretary required the personal approval of the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard to be issued riot gear. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: That's correct. But but the secretary army told me to go ahead and put it into vehicles. So I give him credit for that. 1:19:08 Major General William Walker: Normally for a safety and force protection matter, a commander would would be able to authorize his guardsmen to protect themselves with helmet and protective equipment. 1:25:57 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): General Walker if the restrictions on your authorities hadn't been put in place by DoD, what would you have done when Chief Sund called you at 1:49 on January 6, with an urgent request for National Guards assistance? Major General William Walker: I would have immediately pulled all the guardsmen that were supporting the Metropolitan Police Department. They had the gear in the vehicles, I would have had them assemble in the armory, and then get on buses and go straight to the armory and report to the most ranking Capitol Police Officer they saw and take direction. And just let me add this, so one of my Lieutenant Colonel's on his own initiative, went to the Capitol, anticipating that we were going to be called, so he would have been there and he met with Deputy Chief Carroll of the Metropolitan Police Department who asked them, where is the National Guard? How come they're not here? And this Colonel said, Well, I'm sure they're coming. And I'm here to scout out where they're going to be when they get here. So that was the plan. I would have sent them there immediately. As soon as I hung up, my next call would have been to my subordinate commanders, get every single guardsman in this building, and everybody that's helping the Metropolitan Police. We mission them to the Capitol without delay. 1:32:11 Robert Salesses: That's when the Secretary of Defense made the decision at 4:32. As general Walker has pointed out, because I've seen all the timelines, he was not told that till 5:08 that's what Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): How's that possible? Mr. Salesses, do you think that the decision in the moment we were in was made at 4:32 and the person that had to be told, wasn't told for more than half an hour after the decision was made? Robert Salesses: Senator, I think that's that's an issue. 1:37:13 Sen. Maggie Hassann (NH): Looking back now, what might have made a difference in being able to move against some of those individuals sooner? Jill Sanborn: Yeah, I think that's great question. I think it's twofold. So it's the complexity of trying to gather the right intelligence that helps us predict indicators and warnings. And I spoke earlier about while there's a volume out there of rhetoric, trying to figure out that intent is very challenging for us in the intel community because it happens on private comms and encryption. So that's one aspect. And then the other aspect is of the people that we were investigating. So predicated investigations, we don't necessarily have the ability to mitigate the threat they might pose by travel if we don't have a charge. And so I think you're tracking that we were aware of some of our subjects that intended to come here. We took over action by going and talking them and trying to get them to not come and that worked in the majority of our already predicated cases. 1:49:46 To review the timeline at 1:49 Chief Sund contacted you. At 2:15 the capital was breached. I think in your testimony you said you had available 340 DC National Guard troops Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Sir, it was actually half of that. So, so half were on the streets helping the Metropolitan Police Department. The other half would have came in to relieve them, but we would have called them in to come in. 1:50:33 Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How quickly could have you gotten? How many people to the Capitol? Major General William Walker: 20 minutes? Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How many people? Major General William Walker: 150 1:56:47 Jill Sanborn: We're seeing people that got caught up in the moment got caught up in the sort of the energy etc. and made their way into the captain on those are probably the ones that you're seeing the charges simply of trespassing and then we're definitely seeing that portion that you're pointing out which is small groups and cells now being charged with conspiracy that coalesced either on site or even days or weeks prior and had sort of an intent that day and they to probably caught people up in the energy. PART 2 23:00 Jill Sanborn: The piece of information we received, again, was a non attributable posting to a message board. And so very raw, very unvetted, we actually didn't receive that information until late, very late in the afternoon on the fifth and almost into the evening. And because of our emphasis on we need any intelligence, even though it was raw and attributed, and unvetted, the Norfolk office quickly wrote that up specifically in a document following our processes to disseminate that. So a situation information report is for the intentional purpose of sharing that with state and local partners. Not only did they write that up, because they knew how important that was to get that information out into the hands of folks that might need it, our state and local partners, within 40 minutes, they sent an email to the Washington field office with that information and Washington Field Office also then followed up with an email to all Task Force officers. And so several different mechanisms were happened here. And you know, we'd like to use the phrase 'belt and suspenders' we didn't want to make sure that one method of communication failed. So we wrote it up in the document for dissemination. We sent it in an email to all taskforce officers in the National Capitol Region, and that does include Washington Metro as well as Capitol. But again, not wanting to rely on those two mechanisms only it was then briefed verbally in a command post and interagency command post that we were doing briefings every couple of hours, though, that every agency in that command post have what we call a common operating picture. Knowing what all of us knew at any given time, it was briefed at 8pm on the evening of the fifth, and then taking it one step further, because we didn't want to limit our aperture to just the National Capital Region, because there's collection opportunity out there for all state and local partners and federal partners to help us, we loaded that suspicious information report into what we call the Leap Portal. And that is accessible by all state and local partners. So we really tried in various ways to make sure that we did not rely on one communication mechanism and really tried to rely on several so that the information would get to the right people. 34:46 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): We can talk all we want about January sixth, but really it's the decision making leading up to that. Someone made a bad judgment call and we need to be better prepared. If we're gonna fix this in the future, it isn't about calling the National Guard out quicker. It's about having 1000 people standing there before the riot happens to the riot doesn't happen. Hearing: , House Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, February 25, 2021 Witnesses: Timothy Blodgett Acting Sergeant at Arms; U.S. House of Representatives Yogananda D. Pittman, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police. Transcript: 09:11 ** Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (CA):** The United States Capitol Police Force is not meant to be an army, expecting 1600 officers to hold back an unruly mob of eight to 10,000 people, many of whom were armed and had their own homemade explosive devices or had came with or weaponized, everyday items. It's not a position we should ever have to be in. 20:51 Yogananda D. Pittman: There's evidence that some of those who stormed the Capitol were organized. But there's also evidence that a large number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of this latter group that the department was not prepared for. Hearing: , Committee on Financial Services, February 25, 2021 Witnesses Iman Boukadoum Senior Manager, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks Executive Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross CEO of Valens Global Transcript: 03:28 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. 03:54 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Unlike ISIS, for example, these organizations are not pyramid shaped where funding comes from a handful of easily disruptable areas. An online fundraising drive for a legitimate charity, and one that helps support an extremist group can look very similar. 04:57 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): We need to conscientiously be mindful of the civil liberties concerns at play here. Unlike international extremist groups, law enforcement is constrained by the Constitution when dealing with domestic extremists, balancing the desire to give law enforcement the tools necessary to disrupt these groups with the need to respect the rights of all Americans and the Constitution to which we have all pledged an oath is essential. 05:36 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): While we all live through a brutal event on January 6th, undertaken by right wing extremists, no location on the political spectrum has a monopoly on extremism or violence. 10:08 Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): We're here against the backdrop of the January 6th insurrection. A deplorable yet predictable display of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys, the oathkeepers QAnon and others and nationalist violence incited by President Trump against the members of this body and against democracy itself. 12:51 Iman Boukadoum: Last month violent insurrection heavily fueled by white supremacy and white nationalism shocked the world. 13:52 Iman Boukadoum: We know, however, that even well intentioned national security laws are invariably weaponized against black, brown and Muslim communities. And that white nationalist violence is not prioritized making that policy failure the fundamental reason for what transpired on January 6th, not lack of legal authority. For this reason we oppose any legislation that would create new charges for domestic terrorism or any enhanced or additional criminal penalties. The federal government, including the Treasury Department, has many tools at its disposal to investigate. And also the FBI and DOJ have 50 statutes, at least 50 statutes and over a dozen criminal statutes, 50 terrorism related statutes, excuse me and over a dozen criminal statutes that they can use. They just need to use them to target white nationalist violence. 19:33 Lecia Brooks: Today, some white nationalist groups and personalities are raising funds through the distribution of propaganda itself. In November SPLC researchers reported that dozens of extremist groups were earning 1000s of dollars per month on a popular live streaming platform called D-Live. 20:21 Lecia Brooks: Crowdfunding is also being exploited by hate groups to earn money in this new decentralized landscape. Crowdfunding sites played a critical role in the capital insurrection, providing monetary support that allowed people to travel to Washington DC. They've also played a crucial role in raising hundreds of 1000s of dollars in legal fees for extremists. 20:43 Lecia Brooks: The violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6 should serve as a wake up call for Congress, the Biden administration, Internet companies, law enforcement and public officials at every level. 23:11 Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. 23:33 Daniel Glaser: During my time at the Treasury Department, I fought to cut off funding to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and Hezbollah, as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bush Administration, and eventually as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Obama Administration. My primary responsibility was to lead the design and implementation of strategies to attack the financial networks of these groups and other threats to our country's national security. And while we should never let down our guard with respect to those still potent terrorist organizations, it has become tragically clear that there are domestic extremist groups that in some ways present an even greater threat to our ideals and our democracy. We have the responsibility to target those groups with the same determination, creativity and sense of purpose that we displayed in the years following 9/11. 27:42 Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships the use of information sharing authorities and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. 30:10 Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popular popularized the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp outfits that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and form further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms including included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. 31:40 Daniel Rogers: We also found that a large fraction of the groups we studied have a tax exempt status with the IRS, a full 100% of anti muslim groups. 75% of anti-immigrant groups, and 70% of anti LGBTQ groups have 501-C-3 or 501-C-4 status. Over 1/3 of the militia groups that we identified, including the oathkeepers, whose leadership was recently indicted on charges related to January 6, have tax exempt status. This status gives them access to a whole spectrum of charity fundraising tools, from Facebook donations to amazon smile, to the point where most of the most common fundraising platform we identified across all of our data was Charity Navigator. 32:30 Daniel Glaser: I think it's important to remember that if you want to be able to use a cryptocurrency in the real economy, to any scale, it at some point doesn't need to be converted into actual fiat currency into dollars. That's the place where the Treasury Department does regulate cryptocurrencies. 42:10 Daniel Glaser: Cryptocurrency exchanges are regarded as money service businesses. They have full customer due diligence requirements. They have full money laundering program requirements, they have reporting requirements. The US Treasury Department just last month, issued a proposed rule relating to unhosted wallets of cryptocurrencies. And that's out for notice and comment. Right now. It addresses the particular issue of, of wallets that are not hosted on a particular exchange. And I think it's an important rule that's out there and I do encourage people to take a look at it, the comment period closes in May, and then hopefully, Treasury will be able to take regulatory action to close that particular vulnerability. 42:46 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did not to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. 44:37 Daniel Rogers: The days leading up to the insurrection, the oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes appeared on a podcast and solicited charitable donations to the oathkeepers Educational Fund. It can only be presumed that these funds which listeners were notably able to deduct from their federal taxes, went to transporting and lodging members of the group slated to participate in the ensuing riots. 46:06 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: In looking at the draft legislation that the majority noticed with this hearing, one bill stuck out to me and I think it's a good follow up for your from your most recent exchange. It seeks to amend title 31 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to allow designated employees of financial institutions to access classified information related to terrorism, sedition, and insurrection. Now, over the past three congresses, we've talked about the concept of a fusion center, not unlike we do in monitoring cyber risk and cyber crimes for this terror finance arena. We've never been able to come ashore on it legislatively. So I found that interesting. However, I'm concerned that when you deputize bank employees without any oversight, as to how the information would be protected or if there's really even a need for that. 46:53 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Could you describe how banks share information with law enforcement today and how they provide feedback on how we might change these protocols or if they're if that protocol change is necessary. Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: Thank you ranking member, there are four primary ways that banks share information now. The first is suspicious activity reports or the SAR. Financial institutions have to file these documents with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN. When there's a suspected case of money laundering or fraud, the star is designed to monitor activity and finance related industries that are out of the ordinary are a precursor to illegal activity, or can threaten public safety. Second, there's law enforcement's 314 a power under the Patriot Act, in which obtains potential lead information from financial institutions via fincen. Third, law enforcement can use its subpoena power, if a court issues a subpoena pursuant to an investigation, or to an administrative proceeding and forth where there are blocked assets pursuant to OFAC authorities, sanctions or otherwise, banks are required to report block assets back to OFAC. The information sharing in my view is currently quite effective. Treasury in particular has a very strong relationship with the US financial institutions. 48:24 Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to Finicen, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. 1:15:15 Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. 1:50:25 Daniel Rogers: I think there are a number of regulatory fronts that all kind of go to the general problem of disinformation as a whole. And I don't know that we have the time to get into all of them here, but I think they, they certainly fall into three three big categories, with the one most relevant to today's discussion being this idea of platform government and platform liability, that, you know, our data is showing how what a key role, these sorts of platforms play in facilitating the activities of these groups. And the fact that the liability is so nebulous or non existent through things like Section 230 and whatnot, which what we found is that there's there's already policies in place against all of these hate and extremist groups, but they're just simply not enforced. And so updating that kind of platform liability to help drive enforcement I think is one of the key areas that that that we can focus on. Hearing: , Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, February 23, 2021 Witnesses Captain Carneysha Mendoza Field Commander of the United States Capitol Police Special Operations Division Robert Contee Acting Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department Paul Irving Former Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives Michael Stenger Former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate Steven Sund Former Chief of the United States Capitol Police Transcript: 27:11 Captain Carneysha Mendoza: On January 6th, we anticipated an event similar to the million MAGA March that took place on November 14th, where we would likely face groups fighting among one another. 39:21 Robert Contee: MPD is prohibited by federal law from entering the Capitol or its grounds to patrol, make arrests or served warrants without the consent request of the Capitol Police board. 39:32 Robert Contee: The President of the United States not the Mayor of the District of Columbia controls the DC National Guard. 39:57 Robert Contee: Since Mayor Bowser declared a public health emergency last March, the district has not issued permits for any large gatherings. Although the district and MPD take pride in facilitating the exercise of first amendment rights by all groups, regardless of their beliefs. None of the public gatherings on January 5th and sixth were issued permits by the city. 47:13 Steven Sund: The intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the January six protests were expected to be similar to the previous MAGA rallies in 2020, which drew 10s of 1000s of participants. 55:33 Paul Irving: We began planning for the protests of January 6th in December 2020. The planning relied on what we understood to be credible intelligence provided by various state and federal agencies, including a special event assessment issued by the Capitol Police on January 3rd. The January 3rd assessment forecast at the pros tests were ‘expected to be similar to the previous million MAGA March rallies that had taken place in November and December 2020.’ Every Capitol Police daily intelligence report between January 4 and January 6, including on January 6th forecast the chance of civil disobedience or arrest during the protests as remote to improbable. 56:29 Paul Irving: The Chiefs plan took on an all hands on deck approach whereby every available sworn Capitol Police employee with police powers was assigned to work on January 6th. That meant approximately 1200 Capitol Police officers were on site, including civil disturbance units and other tactical teams. I also understood that 125 National Guard troops were on notice to be standing by for a quick response. The Metropolitan Police Department was also on 12 hour shifts, with no officers on day off or leave. And they staged officers just north of the Capitol to provide immediate assistance if required. The plan was brief to multiple law enforcement partners. Based on the intelligence we all believed that the plan met the threat. 1:00:57 Steven Sund: I actually just in the last 24 hours, was informed by the department that they actually had received that report. It was received by what we call, it's one of our sworn members that's assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is a task force with the FBI. They received it the evening of the fifth, reviewed it and then forwarded over to an official at the Intelligence Division over at the US Capitol Police Headquarters. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And so you hadn't seen it yourself? Steven Sund: No, ma'am. It did not go any further than that. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. And then was it sent to the House and Senate Sergeant in Arms? I don't believe that went any farther than from over to the sergeant at the intelligence. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And Mr. Irving. Mr. Stanger, Do you did you get that report beforehand? Mr. Stanger, Did you get the report? Michael Stenger: No. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay, Mr. Irving? Paul Irving: I did not Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. 1:05:36 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund, you stated in your written testimony that you first made a request for the Capitol Police board to declare an emergency and authorized National Guard support on Monday January 4th, and that request was not granted. Steven Sund: That is correct, ma'am. 1:05:47 Sen. Klobuchar: Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police corps resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard. Would you agree with that? That's one of the things we want to look at. Steven Sund: Yes, ma'am. 1:06:02 Sen. Klobuchar: Do you think that changes are needed to make clear that the Capitol Police Chief has the authority to call in the National Guard? Steven Sund: I certainly do. I think in an exigent circumstances, there needs to be a streamlined process for the Capitol Chief of Police for the Capitol Police to have authority. 1:07:23 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund your written testimony states that you had no authority to request the assistance of the National Guard without an emergency declaration of the Capitol Police board. And what rule regulation or authority Did you base that view? Steven Sund: I'd have to go back and look the specific rule, but it's a standard. It's a standing rule that we have. I cannot request the National Guard without a declaration of emergency from the Capitol Police board. It's kind of interesting because it's very similar to the fact you know, I can't even give my men and women cold water on an excessively hot day without a declaration of emergency. It's just a process that's in place. 1:11:32 Steven Sund: I think that information would have been helpful to be aware of, again, looking at the information for the first time yesterday, it is strictly raw data it’s raw intelligence information that has come in seeing on a social media post lots of people, postings on social media that needs to be corroborated and confirmed. So again, it's coming in as raw data. So please keep that in mind. But, you know, I agree. That's something we need to look at what's the process and how do we streamline that information getting it to where it needs to go? 1:19:09 Robert Contee: Just after some time after two o'clock RPM, I had left the West front of the Capitol after initially being at the scene, assessing what was going on, or looking at just how violent...looking at the violent actions that were taking place. Shortly thereafter, there was a phone call that was convened between several officials. Chief Sund was on the call, literally pleading for there were several army officials that were on the call, I don't know all by name, who on the call, several officials from district government that wanted to say was Chief Sund was pleading for the deployment of the National Guard in response to that there was not an immediate ‘Yes, all the National Guard is responding. Yes, the National Guard is on the way. Yes, the National Guard are being restage from traffic posts to respond.’ The response was more asking about the plan, that, what was the plan for the National Guard, that response was more focused on, in addition to the plan, of the optics, how this looks with boots on the ground on the on the Capitol, and my response to that was simply I was just stunned. I have officers that were out there literally fighting for their lives. And, we're kind of going through, what seemed like an exercise to really check the boxes. And there was not an immediate response...when I asked specifically, Steve Sund, Chief Sund requested in the National Guard. And was that request being denied? The response was no, we're not, that from the US Department of the Army was no, we're not denying the request. But they were concerned, they did have concerns. So I was just again, just stunned at that response. 1:25:25 Paul Irving: Chief Sund called me to tell me that he had received an offer from the National Guard to provide us 125 unarmed troops to work with traffic control in the perimeter of the Capitol. Shortly after that discussion, I said let's include Sergeant in Arms, Stanger, as chair of the board and another senior official with quite a bit of experience. The three of us talked it through. And during that call, the number one question on the table was did the intelligence support, did the intelligence support that additional offer for those 125 troops? Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): And did you discuss this with anybody except Sergeant in Arms Stanger and Chief Sund? Paul Irving: No, it was just this one phone call. And during that call, we all agreed that the intelligence did not support the troops and collectively decided to let it go. Michael Stanger then said how about we put them on standby just in case and that's what we ended up doing. 1:32:09 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): But what about preparedness? We've received information that prior to January six Capitol Police officers were not trained on how to respond to an infiltration of the Capitol Building. Is that correct? Mr. Sund? Steven Sund: When you talk about infiltration, you talk about a large insurrection like we saw on January 6th, no. 1:43:26 Steven Sund: It was very similar to the intelligence assessments that we had for the November and December MAGA marches, the intelligence assessments that we had developed for the January 6 event all the way up until January 6, we're all saying very much the same thing. And that's what we had planned for. We had planned for the possibility of violence, the possibility of some people being armed, not the possibility of a coordinated military style attack involving 1000s against the Capitol. 2:09:34 Sen. James Lankford (OK): You'd set in this you've talked several times about 1000s of well coordinated well equipped violent criminals and described them with climbing gear and all the things that you've also testified here. You also mentioned this letter about the pipe bombs that were located, that the first would come at 1252 that a pipe bomb had been located the Republican National Committee headquarters. How was that located? Who found it? And why was that particular moment the moment that it was found? Steven Sund: I don't know why there was a particular moment that was found, I believe it was an employee of the Republican National Committee that had located in the rear of the building that had called it into Capitol Police Headquarters. Sen. James Lankford (OK): You had mentioned before that you thought this was part of the coordination that there were several that were out there that would take away resources at that exact moment. But there's no way to know that they would find it at that exact moment. I'm glad they did find it, they found another one at the democratic headquarters as well at 1:50. And you document that as well. But you had to send quite a few individuals to be able to go to the RNC and the DNC to be able to go deal with those explosives that we're planted there. Is that correct? Steven Sund: That is correct. And just for your information, the RNC pipe bomb, that was one that was really run by Capitol Police, the DNC Metropolitan ended up taking that and running that so we can run two concurrently that resulted in the evacuation of two congressional buildings, the Cannon House Office building as well as one of the Library of Congress buildings, so it took extensive resources. Sen. James Lankford (OK): So the assaults in the Capitol is not what caused the evacuation of those buildings. The discovery of those pipe bombs is what caused the evacuation those buildings.Steven Sund: that is correct, sir. 2:18:33 Robert Contee: Yeah, so the Mayor does not have full authority over the National Guard to include their activation or deployment. When the mayor, we make a request as the District of Columbia, we make a request, we send that to the federal government. Ultimately, the Secretary of the Army oversees that request, there's a whole approval process that that request has to go through in order for National Guard resources to be deployed to the District of Columbia. Unlike governors and other states who are able to activate their national guard without going through those approval processes and receiving approval from the highest level of the federal government. We just, that just does not have to take place in other states. So a real hindrance to us in terms of response and the ability to call them up. 2:33:07 Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR): On January 5th, the FBI issued a report through the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes going to the US Capitol Police. And that report noted that on the far right media the threats included things, such as the comments such as ‘be ready to fight, Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, blood from their BLM and Antifa-slave-soldiers being spilled. Get violent, stop calling this a march or rally or protest. Go there ready for war. We get our president or we die. Nothing else will achieve this goal.’ 2:39:22 Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR): Have you ever held a drill to respond this situation where a crowd pushes past the exterior barricades? Steven Sund: Not this level of situation no, sir. Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR): To what level Have you had such drills? Steven Sund: We've done various exercises with people, activities on the grounds during civil disobedience training, how to handle riotous groups. Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR): Okay. Thank you. Hearing: , House Committee on Homeland Security, February 4, 2021 Witnesses Christopher Rodriguez Director of the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C Elizabeth Neumann Founder and Managing Director of Neu Summit Strategies Former Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Brian Jenkins Senior Advisor to the RAND President, The RAND Corporation Jonathan Greenblatt CEO at the Anti-Defamation League Transcript: 15:04 Christopher Rodriguez: I'm here today to discuss the January 6th attack that led to the insurrection at the US Capitol, which based upon my experience was clearly an act of domestic terrorism. 18:31 Christopher Rodriguez: Mayor Bowser has already suggested one common sense proposal, and that is to transfer control of the DC National Guard to the mayor of the District of Columbia, which would allow for swifter operational decisions during an evolving incident. As we saw on January 6th, under federal control, the guard is not as nimble and responsive as it could be. 21:34 Christopher Rodriguez: The threats we now face are arguably as dangerous as they were in the post 9/11 environment. These threats are not going away. 24:43 Elizabeth Neumann: Extremist ideas have been mainstreamed and normalized through political speech, conspiracy theories and communications that use humor and means to mask the danger of those ideas present. Consequently, there is a high likelihood of violence in the coming months on a range of softer targets associated with their perception of the deep state, including infrastructure, mainstream media, law enforcement, big tech and elected officials. 24:59 Elizabeth Neumann: There are many other complicating factors I can't go into at this moment, but sadly I do believe that we will be fighting domestic terrorism that has its roots and inspiration points from January sixth for the next 10 to 20 years. 25:34 Elizabeth Neumann: I urge that at a minimum, we change our laws to ensure equal justice treating threats from ideologies that originated overseas and within the United States the same. 37:00 Brian Jenkins: What many mean by a new domestic terrorism statute is a domestic version of the Material Support Provision of the Patriot Act which criminalizes providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Now, that requires designating domestic terrorist groups and there's a problem. There are hundreds of extremist groups on both ends of the political spectrum, along with other issue oriented groups that conceivably might be labeled terrorist organizations. Battle lines will be drawn and as each party proposes its preferred list. The contentious debate could distract us from the problem, and it could end badly. My advice is to avoid the terrorism as much as possible, and base prosecutions on existing criminal offenses putting aside the political pretensions of the perpetrators. 1:30:00 Rep. Michael McCaul (TX): I think that what happened on January 6th, when you look at the USA PATRIOT Act, they actually defined domestic terrorism and international, but they never included charges or penalties for domestic terrorism. They only did it for international. I think it was because in 2001, they're more focused on foreign terrorists like Al Qaeda, those responsible for 9/11. But the definition says that ‘activities could involve dangerous acts to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws, the United States, or any state that appeared to be intended to influence the policy that would get around buying work origin will affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction.’ I think the capital attack seems to fit squarely within that definition. 1:46:00 Brian Jenkins: The problem is that the, clearly the defenders of the Capitol were badly outnumbered. That was simply the, I think it is that issue. Now our commission can investigate this further, but just having a greater number of people on the exterior, as well as and I think this is one thing that we that I don't see in response is that there should have been inner perimeters as well. In other words, the presumption that what if they break through that outer line, what if they break through the doors, now we're dealing with them inside? Do we have prepared security within the Capitol building as opposed to around the Capitol building that will protect the officials and their staffs that are threatened by this action? 2:01:06 Rep. Yvette Clark (NY): We cannot parse words. This was an act of domestic terrorism, an attack on our citadel of democracy. 2:13:35 Elizabeth Neumann: There were a lot of conversations or media reports that people had been booted off of planes, because they were quote unquote on the No Fly List, I believe that was misunderstood airlines have the ability to make decisions about who they allow on their planes for certain reasons and and if, if they had been no fly listed, they wouldn't have been allowed into the secure area. Past TSA screening. So most likely you're, those circumstances probably are a little different, as opposed to saying that people had already been no fly listed. 2:17:21 **Elizabeth Neumann:* It just makes no sense to me that there were so few, such a low law enforcement presence at the Capitol that there wasn't a stronger perimeter security that those law enforcement officers present didn't have right here. They're just basic things that we have learned over the last 20 years that a strong deterrence often avoids violence and that was not present on January 6. So somewhere somebody made a bad judgment call. 3:14:08 Jonathan Greenblatt: Indeed, why do people believe this kind of insanity and this lunacy that there are pedophilia? Satan worshipping Democrats, you know, in the basements of police parlors, eating children for God's sakes. In part it is because the algorithms that animate the social media platforms invisibly to the user route information to them. So once you click on a certain kind of story, it is often reinforced. And any of us can see this today, if we have a normal internet browser like Chrome or Firefox or whatnot, or Edge, and you look at a YouTube video, it will start to send you more videos, the kinds of what you just looked at. And so that algorithmic routing that happens to the user unknown shapes their worldview and creates what Eli Pariser calls, filter bubbles, and they're deeply dangerous when they are telling people that again, you have this conspiracy trying to hurt them. 3:21:40 Brian Jenkins: Some recent research not done by RAND, but done by the University of Chicago, looking at the people who were arrested for participation in the events on January 6th, based upon statements they made on their own Facebook accounts and so on, indicates that about 20% of them were actually members of extremist groups going in, that the remaining 80% felt they, were there because they felt the election had been stolen. 3:23:29 Brian Jenkins: Within that broader community, there are individuals who feel marginalized, people who have lost faith in our political systems. This is on both sides of the political spectrum. And we have to do in our zeal to go after the violent component is not accidentally brand as enemies of the state, a broader section of our population. Now, that is a continuing strategy. And that's one of the reasons actually, why I want so much of our efforts against the violent extremists to be done within the ordinary criminal code. Put aside the political pretensions, don't give them that. These are crimes, murder, assault, willful destruction of property, deal with it on that basis. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD235: The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders

11 juli 2021 | 80 min

Sanctions are weapons of economic war. In this episode, learn the troubling history of ever-expanding sanctions powers granted to the President designed to allow him to cut off people, companies, and governments from our financial system. You'll also hear fascinating testimony to Congress about how the targets of U.S. sanctions are getting around them. Their evasion techniques are probably not what you think. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Pacific Deterrence Initiative A Coup for Capitalism Combating China Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran The World Trade Organization: COOL? Articles/Documents Article: by Marc L. Ross, Investopedia, June 13, 2021 Document: by Eric B. Lorber, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights, May 25, 2021 Document: by Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, April 29, 2021 Document: by Gibson Dunn, February 5, 2021 Document: by Dianne E. Rennack and Rebecca M. Nelson, Congressional Research Service, January 15, 2021 Article: by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, January 13, 2021 Document: by Dianne E. Rennack, Ian F. Fergusson, Jennifer K. Elsea, and Christopher A. Casey, Congressional Research Service, July 14, 2020 Document: by Dianne E. Rennack and Matthew C. Weed, Congressional Research Service, June 19, 2020 Article: by Jeff Benson, Decrypt, December 18, 2020 Article: by Maria Daniela Lenzu, European Council, Council of the European Union, December 7, 2020 Article: by Edward J. Collins-Chas and Michael A. Weber, Congressional Research Service, December 7, 2020 Article: by Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, SFGATE, January 20, 2012 Article: by Tom Fitton, The Hill, May 15, 2007 Press Release: by Association of Alternative News Media, January 25, 2007 Document: by Financial Services, U.S. House Additional Resources EB5Capital Wikipedia U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury UC Santa Barbara Federal Register, May 11, 2016 Sound Clip Sources Speeches & Remarks: , White House Briefing Room, June 16, 2021 Transcript: 12:10 President Joe Biden: How would it be if the United States were viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries, and everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he is engaged in? It diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power. President Joe Biden: And, by the way, we talked about trade. I don’t have any problem with doing business with Russia, as long as they do it based upon international norms. It’s in our interest to see the Russian people do well economically. I don’t have a problem with that. But if they do not act according to international norms, then guess what? That will not — that only won’t it happen with us, it will not happen with other nations." Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services: Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy, June 16, 2021 Witnesses Senior Director at the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Managing Director at Former Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Department of the Treasury Former corporate lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Policy Director at Global Financial Integrity Global Head of Policy & Regulatory Affairs at Dr. Jeffrey Taliaferro Professor of Political Science at Tufts University Ivan Garces Principal and Chair of Risk Advisory Services at Kaufmann Rossin Transcript: 07:13 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Sanctions are an important instrument in foreign policy designed to be both a carrot and a stick in persuading an entity, an individual, a group or a country to change its behavior. A step beyond traditional diplomacy. It also avoids the downsides of kinetic action. We've seen the success of our sanctions regimes in bringing the Iranians to the table and isolating human rights violators through the Global Magnitsky Act amongst others. Our sanctions programs can only be as impactful as they are effective. When designated entities evade our sanctions, we lose an important tool from our diplomatic toolbox, increasing the likelihood that military action would be necessary to maintain international order. 08:09 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): This committee has worked to address some of these issues through the passage of the Corporate Transparency Act authored by Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and the Anti Money Laundering Act sponsored by Chairman Emanuel Cleaver as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. These bills give law enforcement the resources and authority to better track money launderers, including sanction evaders, and their success will depend in large part on this body adequately funding their implementation. 11:20 Rep. Andy Barr (KY): The US employs a robust sanctions program to deny adversaries the funding, logistics and resources to conduct illicit behavior or to compel them to change misguided behaviors. 12:14 Rep. Andy Barr (KY): The US maintains four major sanctions programs against Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela. These sanctions are a result of actions by those nations that are in direct conflict with US national security and global economic stability. 17:09 Dr. Jeffrey Taliaferro: The primary aim of sanctions whether unilateral or multilateral, whether comprehensive or targeted, is to induce a change in the cost benefit calculations of the target and thus a change in the targets behavior. 18:13 Dr. Jeffrey Taliaferro: Having won the Cold War and pushed the crumbling Soviet Union out of the ranks of the great powers, the United States emerged as the unit pole, the only great power left standing in 1990 and 1991. And for better or worse for two decades, weak systemic that has international constraints and the availability of opportunities to further improve its strategic position before the United States wide latitude in the definition and in the pursuit of its foreign policy, and national security objectives. This extreme imbalance of international power, however, had several consequences which are relevant to the subject of today's subcommittee hearing. First, the United States impose sanctions and even waged wars against recalcitrant states such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan and non state actors such as Al Qaeda and later the Islamic State with relative impunity. And even when confronting state adversaries against whom the use of kinetic force would have been prohibitively costly, such as North Korea and Iran, the imposition of sanctions became a preferred tool of statecraft for successive administrations and Congresses second US military command of the comments along with American Economic and Technological dominance gave various state and non state actors and incentive to pursue asymmetric strategies, for example, the clandestine employment of cyber criminal organizations and individual hackers by the foreign intelligence services of Russia, China, North Korea and other states. Third, this uni polar distribution of power gave targeted states and other disadvantaged actors and incentive to collaborate with one another to evade or subvert US sanctions. And finally, as the Biden administration's interim national security, strategic guidance acknowledges the distribution of power across the world is changing, creating new threats. 20:13 Dr. Jeffrey Taliaferro: The United States now faces two great power adversaries a rising China and a declining and revanchist Russia, along with two regional power adversaries, Iran and North Korea. All four including their irrespective and their respective clients and allies will seek to evade sanctions. 20:38 Dr. Jeffrey Taliaferro: Might behoove policymakers to perhaps lower their expectations about what coercive economic diplomacy alone can achieve. 25:39 Ivan Garces: We can benefit from increased cooperation between public and private sectors such as is contemplated with the proposed OFAC exchange and the Combating Illicit Finance Public Private Partnership Act, legislation noted for this hearing. Government should be in a position to be able to take, analyze and interpret information we see not only from financial institutions, but other industry stakeholders and connect the dots identifying trends and relationships across the financial system. 26:46 Lakshmi Kumar: US sanctions regime is expansive and currently includes more than 30 different sanctions programs. 27:00 Lakshmi Kumar: Despite the ever increasing reach of sanctions, with evidence showing that the number of sanction vessels imports rather than annual rate of 6%. oil exports by Iran and Venezuela and oil imports by North Korea keep increasing every year. 27:56 Lakshmi Kumar: It is unsurprising that a leading mechanism to evade sanctions involves the use of TBML techniques, I've learned after a year of the pandemic. TBML or trade based money laundering is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime and moving value to trade transactions. It includes tech in techniques like falsifying the origins of a commodity of good over invoicing under invoicing and Phantom invoicing where no goods really move for just money. 28:14 Lakshmi Kumar: TBML was particularly challenging because there are no international standards, even at the level of a financial Task Force and little regulation internationally. It is therefore the perfect ally for sanctions evaders. 28:35 Lakshmi Kumar: The Iranian government was able to pocket $100 billion by falsifying trade records. 28:42 Lakshmi Kumar: Similarly, the Venezuelan Government to get around US sanctions on its gold sector has flown its gold all over the world changing its origins. So the gold is now supposed to be from the Caribbean, from Colombia from Uganda from Dubai, barely anywhere but Venezuela. 29:08 Lakshmi Kumar: Erasing its history in this way means that the US has no way of knowing whether the gold it imports is the same goal that it is seeking to sanction. Sanctioned entities continues to look at the US as a safe haven to get around sanctions. 29:35 Lakshmi Kumar: Professionals that have helped Iran and North Korea evade sanctions invested their lucrative commissions in real estate through the EB five investor program and invest in commercial real estate and buying real estate in states like Alaska. Both commercial real estate in many of the jurisdictions where these investments take place are not part of the geographic targeting orders for real estate. Similarly, vehicles like private equity, hedge funds, venture capital funds that are exempt from carrying out customer due diligence obligations are also involved in sanctions evasion schemes. A recent FBI leak showed that London and New York hedge funds proposed using a scheme to sell prohibited items from sanctioned countries to the US. 30:12 Lakshmi Kumar: Finally, sanctions evasion does not just exploit the gaps in regulation. It exploits the lack of resources that enforcement agencies need to protect. The FinCEN files one problematic, revealed two different sanctions evasion schemes tied to Russia and Syria. It will file their source for financial institutions, but did not necessarily receive the treatment they should have given the resource constraints of the agency. The way forward therefore, is to prompt addressing regulatory gaps but also providing the requisite support to enforcement supervision and oversight agencies. 34:27 Jesse Spiro: Through blockchain analysis, we can confirm that adversarial nations terrorist organizations, malicious enabled cyber actors and transnational criminal organizations under US sanctions have used cryptocurrency in an attempt to weaken the impact or fully circumvent sanctions, just as they have done through traditional banks, trade based money laundering and cash. 40:10 Eric Lorber: The key to countering sanctions evasion is the ability to detect such activity. The Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis along with other members of the intelligence community as well as FinCEN should be provided with the tools necessary to identify sanctions evasion. A legislative proposal under consideration by this can be the OFAC fusion center act could help achieve this. This legislation would create an interagency group designed to share data and allow for better detection and disruption of illicit networks, providing the private sector with the right tools. In recent years, Treasury has armed the private sector with information on sanctions, evasion tactics and red flags that can help companies spot such evasion through a series of advisories combined with clearly signaling to the private sector, their compliance obligations and pursuing aggressive enforcement actions against those who fail to comply. This additional information can help the private sector more effectively counter evasion. 43:33 Eric Lorber: The number of transactions which are elicit that use Bitcoin or blockchain technology is actually fairly low percentage wise it's in I believe, below 1% or somewhere around there. So it's fairly small. 49:40 Eric Lorber: There needs to be political pressure put on those who are supporting and continue to support North Korea. It's it's not a secret that for example, China has created at least a permissive environment for North Korean operators to to work in the country. That was detailed most recently, I believe in that in the UN DPRK panel of experts report from I believe is March 2021. As well as North Korea maintains a series of financial facilitators throughout the world, including in I believe in Russia and China and other jurisdictions that helps North Korea evade US and UN sanctions and these individuals need to be shut down, need to be targeted, and pressure to put on the governments that are hosting them to kick them out of the country. 51:35 Eric Lorber: That's something that we tried to do and I tried to do while we were at Treasury was that clarify very clear the sanctions targets if you change the behavior you're engaged in, these sanctions will be lifted. 1:04:29 Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): Ms. Kumar, I'd like to start with you. In your testimony, I read with interest how you discussed the role that United States real estate, especially commercial real estate plays in sanction evasion regimes. You specifically mentioned the geographic targeting order GTO issued by FINcen, which I might note includes 12 metropolitan areas only to require us title insurance companies to identify natural persons behind shell companies used in all cash purchases of residential real estate. Given the limited Metropolitan list covered by GTO and the fact that commercial real estate is not covered, can you can you speak to both of those problems? Number one, the limited number of metropolitan areas my own suburban Philadelphia or Philadelphia count among them, and also the fact that it's residential, not commercial. Where does this fall short in terms of our regulating evasion? 1:05:42 Lakshmi Kumar: The sanctions program doesn't just target big actors like Iran, North Korea. The sanctions program also targets individuals involved in drug trafficking. And what we see is a lot of those individuals often to evade sanctions, including sort of former officials of the Venezuelan administration, all move or hide assets and move it into real estate and the US real estate market is a popular Avenue. Now, when we talk about commercial real estate, you're absolutely right. And that the sort of often cited example of the Iranians owning that massive skyscraper in New York was a purchase of commercial real estate, it continues to be unrecognized. The EB5 investor program is investments that ultimately go into commercial real estate. Now a lot of this is particularly complex because commercial real estate involves multiple investors, it is not as simple as a residential purchase by a homeowner. To that end, we have to what is necessary is to sort of rethink how we are going to apply the GTO. The title insurance agents may not be the most relevant actors, however, to sort of identify gatekeepers that do continue to play a critical role in sort of putting together these transactions because commercial real estate transaction always take place through legal structures, they are never in the names of an individual. So identifying actors like lawyers, who often play a critical role in this as sort of the the pressure point at which you can conduct due diligence to know who is behind these transactions is one way forward. You've also rightly said that it only covers 12 metropolitan areas, and a lot of the evasion schemes that we often see tied to individuals, but also generally more generally, the use of real estate, you often see an equal split between cases that occur in GTO areas versus cases that occur in non GTO areas. And I will say that we have a report forthcoming in the next month that will actually that shows evidence that when looks at a series of reported cases that actually shows that over the last five years, the number of cases that occur in non-GTO areas actually slightly significantly more than GTO areas. 1:43:57 Rep. Warren Davidson (OH): Currently the SDN list statistics as of yesterday the 15th we have 277 aircraft, 3668 entities, 4603 individuals and 406 vessels. 1:44:40 Eric Lorber: The end goal is is twofold one or one of two. It's either to prevent them from engaging in illicit activity, right? So you mentioned an aircraft prevent that aircraft from shuffling or sending illicit drugs to a destination. Or it's to get the targets to actually change their behavior. So to essentially impose restrictions on them, to get them to say, 'well, this is not worth it.' We are no longer going to engage in material support for terrorism. 1:51:12 Rep. Jake Auchincloss (MA): Blockchain offer you an advantage in authenticating your identity over a different type of currency. Jesse Spiro: No, I would actually posit the complete opposite Congressman, what I would say is that the only vulnerabilities that I would address in relation to KYC are the fact that people could circumvent them. But even if they were to, if they're engaged in illicit activity that can be seen in relation to illicit crypto activity. It is going to be very difficult for them to do anything within the ecosystem. 1:51:59 Rep. Jake Auchincloss (MA): If you are able to advise Congress to take any steps that would influence OFAC's measures, what would you advise that we do? Jesse Spiro: I would just imply to apply congressmen more resources to that agency specifically in relation to the risks associated with cryptocurrency and sanctions evasion, wherein they can produce more designations that include cryptocurrency wallets, because as identifiers for the private sector when they have access to that information, that is how they can potentially mitigate the illicit activity. And because of the activity with cryptocurrency, when a wallet is put on that designation list, any associated activity, or within a designation, excuse me, any associated activity and legacy activity in relation to that look back can also be visible. Hearing: , Committee on Financial Services: Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy, February 25, 2021 Witnesses Iman Boukadoum Senior Manager, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks Executive Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross CEO of Valens Global Transcript: 03:02 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): As we heard from Merrick Garland during his confirmation hearing earlier this week, the country faces a 'more dangerous period in the wake of January 6th, than we did after the Oklahoma City bombing,' the single deadliest act of domestic terrorism in American history. 03:28 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. 03:54 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Unlike ISIS, for example, these organizations are not pyramid shaped where funding comes from a handful of easily disruptable areas. An online fundraising drive for a legitimate charity, and one that helps support an extremist group can look very similar. 04:57 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): We need to conscientiously be mindful of the civil liberties concerns at play here. Unlike international extremist groups, law enforcement is constrained by the Constitution when dealing with domestic extremists, balancing the desire to give law enforcement the tools necessary to disrupt these groups with the need to respect the rights of all Americans and the Constitution to which we have all pledged an oath is essential. 05:36 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): While we all live through a brutal event on January 6th, undertaken by right wing extremists, no location on the political spectrum has a monopoly on extremism or violence. 10:08 Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): We're here against the backdrop of the January 6th insurrection. A deplorable yet predictable display of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys, the oathkeepers QAnon and others and nationalist violence incited by President Trump against the members of this body and against democracy itself. 12:51 Iman Boukadoum: Last month violent insurrection heavily fueled by white supremacy and white nationalism shocked the world. 13:52 Iman Boukadoum: We know, however, that even well intentioned national security laws are invariably weaponized against black, brown and Muslim communities. And that white nationalist violence is not prioritized making that policy failure the fundamental reason for what transpired on January 6th, not lack of legal authority. For this reason we oppose any legislation that would create new charges for domestic terrorism or any enhanced or additional criminal penalties. The federal government, including the Treasury Department, has many tools at its disposal to investigate. And also the FBI and DOJ have 50 statutes, at least 50 statutes and over a dozen criminal statutes, 50 terrorism related statutes, excuse me and over a dozen criminal statutes that they can use. They just need to use them to target white nationalist violence. 19:33 Lecia Brooks: Today, some white nationalist groups and personalities are raising funds through the distribution of propaganda itself. In November SPLC researchers reported that dozens of extremist groups were earning 1000s of dollars per month on a popular live streaming platform called D-Live. 20:21 Lecia Brooks: Crowdfunding is also being exploited by hate groups to earn money in this new decentralized landscape. Crowdfunding sites played a critical role in the capital insurrection, providing monetary support that allowed people to travel to Washington DC. They've also played a crucial role in raising hundreds of 1000s of dollars in legal fees for extremists. 20:43 Lecia Brooks: The violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6 should serve as a wake up call for Congress, the Biden administration, Internet companies, law enforcement and public officials at every level. 23:11 Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. 23:33 Daniel Glaser: During my time at the Treasury Department, I fought to cut off funding to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and Hezbollah, as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bush Administration, and eventually as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Obama Administration. My primary responsibility was to lead the design and implementation of strategies to attack the financial networks of these groups and other threats to our country's national security. And while we should never let down our guard with respect to those still potent terrorist organizations, it has become tragically clear that there are domestic extremist groups that in some ways present an even greater threat to our ideals and our democracy. We have the responsibility to target those groups with the same determination, creativity and sense of purpose that we displayed in the years following 9/11. 27:42 Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships the use of information sharing authorities and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. 30:10 Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popular popularized the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp outfits that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and form further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms including included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. 31:40 Daniel Rogers: We also found that a large fraction of the groups we studied have a tax exempt status with the IRS, a full 100% of anti muslim groups. 75% of anti-immigrant groups, and 70% of anti LGBTQ groups have 501-C-3 or 501-C-4 status. Over 1/3 of the militia groups that we identified, including the oathkeepers, whose leadership was recently indicted on charges related to January 6, have tax exempt status. This status gives them access to a whole spectrum of charity fundraising tools, from Facebook donations to amazon smile, to the point where most of the most common fundraising platform we identified across all of our data was Charity Navigator. 32:30 Daniel Glaser: I think it's important to remember that if you want to be able to use a cryptocurrency in the real economy, to any scale, it at some point doesn't need to be converted into actual fiat currency into dollars. That's the place where the Treasury Department does regulate cryptocurrencies. 42:10 Daniel Glaser: Cryptocurrency exchanges are regarded as money service businesses. They have full customer due diligence requirements. They have full money laundering program requirements, they have reporting requirements. The US Treasury Department just last month, issued a proposed rule relating to unhosted wallets of cryptocurrencies. And that's out for notice and comment. Right now. It addresses the particular issue of, of wallets that are not hosted on a particular exchange. And I think it's an important rule that's out there and I do encourage people to take a look at it, the comment period closes in May, and then hopefully, Treasury will be able to take regulatory action to close that particular vulnerability. 42:46 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did not to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. 44:37 Daniel Rogers: The days leading up to the insurrection, the oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes appeared on a podcast and solicited charitable donations to the oathkeepers Educational Fund. It can only be presumed that these funds which listeners were notably able to deduct from their federal taxes, went to transporting and lodging members of the group slated to participate in the ensuing riots. 46:06 Rep. French Hill (AZ): In looking at the draft legislation that the majority noticed with this hearing, one bill stuck out to me and I think it's a good follow up for your from your most recent exchange. It seeks to amend title 31 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to allow designated employees of financial institutions to access classified information related to terrorism, sedition, and insurrection. Now, over the past three congresses, we've talked about the concept of a fusion center, not unlike we do in monitoring cyber risk and cyber crimes for this terror finance arena. We've never been able to come ashore on it legislatively. So I found that interesting. However, I'm concerned that when you deputize bank employees without any oversight, as to how the information would be protected or if there's really even a need for that. 46:53 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Could you describe how banks share information with law enforcement today and how they provide feedback on how we might change these protocols or if they're if that protocol change is necessary. Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: Thank you ranking member, there are four primary ways that banks share information now. The first is suspicious activity reports or the SAR. Financial institutions have to file these documents with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN. When there's a suspected case of money laundering or fraud, the star is designed to monitor activity and finance related industries that are out of the ordinary are a precursor to illegal activity, or can threaten public safety. Second, there's law enforcement's 314 a power under the Patriot Act, in which obtains potential lead information from financial institutions via FinCEN. Third, law enforcement can use its subpoena power, if a court issues a subpoena pursuant to an investigation, or to an administrative proceeding and forth where there are blocked assets pursuant to OFAC authorities, sanctions or otherwise, banks are required to report block assets back to OFAC. The information sharing in my view is currently quite effective. Treasury in particular has a very strong relationship with the US financial institutions. 48:24 Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to Finicen, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. 1:15:15 Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. 1:50:25 Daniel Rogers: I think there are a number of regulatory fronts that all kind of go to the general problem of disinformation as a whole. And I don't know that we have the time to get into all of them here, but I think they, they certainly fall into three three big categories, with the one most relevant to today's discussion being this idea of platform government and platform liability, that, you know, our data is showing how what a key role, these sorts of platforms play in facilitating the activities of these groups. And the fact that the liability is so nebulous or non existent through things like Section 230 and whatnot, which what we found is that there's there's already policies in place against all of these hate and extremist groups, but they're just simply not enforced. And so updating that kind of platform liability to help drive enforcement I think is one of the key areas that that that we can focus on. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD234: AWOL Recall: The Rock and Play Sleeper

27 juni 2021 | 96 min

In 2009, Mattel's Fisher-Price started selling the Rock and Play Sleeper, a recklessly designed baby bed. During the ten years that it was sold to parents around the world, dozens of babies died and thousands were injured due to the design of the Rock and Play Sleeper. In this episode, learn the results of a congressional investigation into how the Rock and Play Sleeper was invented, why Mattel and Fisher-Price refused to recall their their dangerous but profitable product, what the government did - or didn't do - about it, and why we desperately need Congress to change to our product safety laws as soon as possible. Executive Producer: Brandon K. Lewis Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Lights Out: What Happened in Texas? Social Media Censorship Bills June 4, 2021 Articles/Documents Article: by Dinah Pulver, Rachel Axon, Josh Salman, Katie Wedell and Erin Mansfield, USA Today, June 22, 2021 Article: by Madison Hall , Skye Gould, Rebecca Harrington, Jacob Shamsian, Azmi Haroun, and Taylor Ardrey, Insider, June 22, 2021 Article: by Alanna Durkin Richer, az central, June 10, 2021 Document: by Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives, June 2021 Article: by Michael Humphreys, The Federal Defenders, March 31, 2021 Article: by Colin Kalmbacher, Law & Crime, January 6, 2021 Article: By Rachel Rabkin Peachman, Consumer Reports, December 17, 2020 Recall Notice: United States CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, December 16, 2020 Article: By Rachel Rabkin Peachman, Consumer Reports, March 11, 2020 Recall Notice: United States CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, July 31, 2019 Recall Notice: United States CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, April 12, 2019 Article: The New York Times, August 15, 2007 Additional Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 7, 2021 Witnesses Ynon Kreiz CEO of Mattel Inc. Chuck Scothon Senior Vice President and General Manager of Fisher-Price, Global Head of Infant and Preschool at Mattel Inc. Transcript: 00:01 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: In 2019, this committee launched an exhaustive investigation and to how the Rock 'N Play was developed, marketed and later recalled. Our staff conducted interviews and reviewed 1000s of pages of documents. This morning we are going to be releasing this report, which you can get on the core website or on my congressional website. What we found was absolutely shocking. It is a national scandal. 01:37 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: When Mattel released the Rock 'N Play in 2009, it was the only product of its kind on the market. pediatrician said advice for years that infants should sleep on a firm flat crib mattress to prevent death or injury. But Rock 'N Play was a padded seat holding infants at a 30 degree angle. Even though this new design conflicted with safety guidelines, our investigation shows that Mattel did not consult with a single pediatrician or conduct a single scientific study to find out if it was safe for babies to sleep at an angle. Internal documents also show that over the decade this product was sold, but Mattel repeatedly ignored urgent warnings from international regulators, pediatricians, and even its own customers that the Rock 'N Play was unsafe. 02:34 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: For example, in 2010, a regulator in Australia warned Mattel that using this product as a sleeper "is at odds with widely accepted and promoted best practices." In quote, in 2011, the company was banned from marketing the rockin play as a sleeper in Canada because of safety concerns. 03:13 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: Mattel also received a steady drumbeat of reports that infants as young as two months old, had stopped breathing or even died in the rockin play. Mattel employees admitted to the committee that the company knew about these deaths and injuries, but Mattel claimed that its product was not the problem. 04:35 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: In fact, Mattel only agreed to recall it after it became clear that the Consumer Reports was about to publish a very damning evidence that dozens of infants died using the rock in play. 05:07 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: On Friday, we learned that Mattel is recalling two more inclined infant infant products that the company marketed for sleep. The Rock 'N Glide Soother and Sooth 'N Play Glider after four infants rolled over in the Rock 'N Glide and suffocated. In other words, they died because of the exact same dangerous product design as the infants who died in Rock 'N Play. 25:58 Chuck Scothon: Around our headquarters in Buffalo, New York. After the product launch, Fisher Price regularly examined and analyzed any safety incident that was reported and regularly shares the reports of fatalities and serious incidents with the CPSC for its own analysis. We asked two top doctors to evaluate the safety of the product specifically related to observing the breathing of infants sleeping in an incline in the product. These doctors confirmed the Rock 'N Play Sleeper was safe when used in accordance with the warnings and instructions. In 2018, we had extensive discussions with the CPSC about the rockin play. And as one of the top engineering firms to assess independently whether infants were at risk of rolling over when using the product. We are confident that all of our products are safe when uses intendance and intended in accordance with the warnings and instructions. At the same time, we take into account reports of injuries that are associated with other patterns of use. In light of the risks of accidents and the use of inclined sleepers, the safety restraints were not used. We decided two years ago to recall the rock and play voluntarily is the best way to reduce this risk. 27:14 Chuck Scothon: Recently we considered a similar situation with a 4-in-1 Rocking Glide Soother. Although this is not a sleeping product, the data indicated a risk of accidents if the safety restraints were not used, or children were left unsupervised. Based on this, we decided to recall the glider, which we announced last Friday. We also recall the 2-in-1 Soothe 'N Play Glider, even though there are no reported fatalities associated with this product, because it is similar to the 4-In-1 glider. Importantly, with these two actions, we no longer make any products in either the inclined sleep category, or the glider category and we have no intention of doing so in the future. 28:11 Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: Mr. Kreiz, the report that the committee released today is based on interviews and internal documents from your company, Mattel, and these internal sources are damning. They show Mattel did not do any independent research. As to the safety to see if rockin play was safe for sleeping before starting to sell it in 2009. They show that Mattel did not consult a single licensed pediatrician to make sure that the product was safe. And they show that rockin play. After it came to market. They ignored Mattel ignored a pediatricians warning and writing and brushed off reports from mothers who had lost their children that babies had stopped breathing and even died from the product. They were worn from foreign countries that had taken it off the market. And the documents show that after the Consumer Product Safety Commission, raise concerns with Mattel in 2018, your company fought back for nearly a year. Even though you knew at least 14 infants had died in your product. 14 babies lost. This is a national scandal. It is breathtakingly irresponsible. It is corporate conduct that cannot be tolerated. And it has to change in the future. Mr. Kreiz, on behalf of Mattel Will you accept responsibility for this tragedy and apologize to the dozens of families whose children died using your product? Ynon Kreiz: Well, let me first say that our hearts go out to every family who suffered the loss. The Rock 'N Play Sleeper was safe when used in accordance with its instructions and safety warnings. The Sleeper was designed and developed following extensive research, medical advice, Safety Analysis, and more than a year of testing and reviews. The product met or exceeded all applicable regulatory standards as recent as 2017. The CPSC proposed to adopt the SDM standard for 30 degree Sleeper as a federal law. After the product launched different independent medical and other expert analysis verified that it was safe when use in accordance with instructions and warnings. Two studies confirmed that the rock and play sleeper was as safe or safer than other slip environment such as cribs, and bassinets. And one of these studies found that the product Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney: Reclaiming my time, The bottom line is 50 children, infants died 50. You did not conduct any studies. You didn't even you didn't even talk to a licensed pediatrician. You didn't even talk to the medical profession. You didn't do anything. But pump it out there and sell it. 35:19 Rep. Michael Cloud (TX): Okay, previously there had been pushback from authorities in Canada, UK and Australia. Do you think aggressively in retrospect, aggressively marketing the Rock 'N Play as a sleeper in the US was the right thing to do? Ynon Kreiz: We consult with all regulators in all jurisdictions and meet or exceed every every standard. In the US The product was was approved. We met rather we met we met all their standards, all applicable standards. 44:35 Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC) : Do you think that Mattel took Dr. Benner-Roach's warning seriously enough? Ynon Kreiz: I'm aware of that interaction and I know we took his considered his recommendation and consider those seriously. That said, As my colleague just mentioned, we did not see an issue with what he raised because with the product did meet the bassinet standard. And while we did consider his his observation, we did not agree with them. 45:00 Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC) : Mattel's decision not his head Dr. Benner-Roach's warning seriously seems to me to be inexcusable. It also demonstrates why it is important that we repeal section 6B of the Consumer Product Safety Act and stop letting corporations hide behind the law to hide deaths associated with their products from the public. Dr. Benner-Roach knew in 2013 the Rock 'N Play was dangerous. At that time, Mattel also knew that infants had died and Rock 'N Pay. Perhaps if the public knew as well. Dr. Benner-Roach's warning would not have fallen on deaf ears. 51:26 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : A July 2020 Consumer Reports found that 96% of American people believe that products that they buy for their home are governed by mandatory safety standards that are set by the government. But, as we know, on this committee for the vast majority of products on the market, that is simply not true. Most products, including the Rock 'N Play are only governed by voluntary standards set by an organization called ASTM. International, the formally the American Society for Testing and Materials. 52:09 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Mr. Scothon, I understand that the Rock and Play and Glide and Sooth glider were all subject to a voluntary standards set by ASTM International, is that right? Chuck Scothon: They were... Yes, they were set by the ASTM standards, as well as the CPSC guidelines where appropriate. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Right. And ASTM is comprised of and again, I hate to use acronyms, but the American Society for Testing Material International, is comprised of a bunch of different groups and individuals, including product manufacturers, like shelves, testing labs, some consumer advocates and others. But what many consumers don't know that, Is that the ASTM committees, manufacturers, like yourself, can influence the voluntary standards that are set for their own products, is that correct? Chuck Scothon: We are involved in those standards. It's a consensus based organization, which takes into account all of the different expertise from all of the different individuals. So that consensus is really designed to ensure that no single company or group can influence Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Right but Mattel employees, including the people who helped design the rock and play actually sit on the ASTM committees that design standards foot for infant products, don't they? Chuck Scothon: They are involved in the asdm standard setting process. Correct? Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Right. And when they participate in AFC ns work to set safety standards they are doing so as representatives of the company and not as independent individuals. Is that correct? Chuck Scothon: Well, they are representatives of the company, but typically their roles are to facilitate the process to focus on getting the groups together to aggregating and putting all the information together and coming back with consensus points of view. 1:00:04 Chuck Scothon: The incident rate up until approximately February we're looking at we were aware of approximately 14 in 2018. We are aware of 14 incidents through 2018. That is when we filed the 15B report with the CPSC. Throughout the course of those previous years, we were notifying the CPSC upon learning of any incident immediately, right? Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI): How many children have died totally in this toy or whatever, how many total died? Chuck Scothon: Today we are aware of approximately believe it is the numbers currently 97. Although those numbers change, as we are also finding that some of the products that have been attributed to the Rock and Play, we're not Fisher Price or incline sleep. So the data one of the things are in it's why it's making it more difficult is typically when we find into report the data is very inconsistent. It is sometimes inaccurate or incorrect. That is why we investigate things individually. And that is what we did. Rep. Grossman: Sorry, the only give us five minutes here, is 97. Is that for all over the world or just United States? Chuck Scothon: I believe that as a US number. Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI): Okay, so it could be significantly more how many other condoms is marketed. Chuck Scothon: I'd have to get back to it specifically on that. And by the way, I believe that actually is a worldwide number. I apologize, but it was a worldwide number. 1:14:15 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL): I think that the statement was made Mr. Scothon and you said that essentially the rockin play comported with the bassinet standard, didn't you? Chuck Scothon: That's correct at the time of launch, it was part of the bassinet standard. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL): And I'm looking at I'm looking at the CPSC website right now and the final rule clearly states that the standard limits the allowable angle to 10 degrees incline, so your Rock 'N Play absolutely did not did not comport with the bassinet final rule. 2:16:12 Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Now it's been well established at this point that incline sleep can be harmful even deadly to infants. And today Mr. Scothon, Fisher Price and Mattel are no longer selling any inclined sleeper products. Is that correct? Chuck Scothon: That is correct. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): And you've recalled all inclined sleeper incline sleepers and you've notified parents that they're dangerous Is that correct? Chuck Scothon: The Rock and Play was our inclined sleeper product that was recalled in 2019. And we have done all the outreach to try to bring the product back. Yes. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): You mentioned, I asked about all inclined sleepers and you responded about the Rock 'N Play? Do you have other inclined sleepers on the marketplace today? Chuck Scothon: No, once again, to clarify, there is an inclined sleeper which is something that is considered for long term or overnight sleep. And then there are other products that are intended where a baby may fall asleep. But we suggest that are then move to a hard flat surface. So the rock Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Babies, babies like exhausted moms can fall asleep anywhere because they need sleep. But Mr. Scothon and you're a marketing expert. So I want to ask you a marketing question drawing on your expertise. If you wanted to sell someone a product related to sleep, would you mention things like counting sheep, catching some Z's having Sweet dreams? This sleeping and dreaming are pretty closely tied together and folks minds you can't dream while you're awake. Correct? Chuck Scothon: Yes. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Okay, so I want to ask you about a fisher price product that I found on target's website. It is called the Fisher Price, The Sweet Snug-A-Puppy Dreams Deluxe Bouncer. What a baby sleeping in this fell asleep in this dreams. Deluxe bouncer has been an incline. Chuck Scothon: If a baby fell asleep, yes, they would be at an incline. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Okay, and they would be asleep in this incline situation. It's marketed as dreams Deluxe bouncer. But nowhere in your sales information on your website on target's website or Amazon's website. Does it say that a child should not be allowed to sleep in it? In fact, in response to a question in a on the Mattel's website, it just says it shouldn't be used for prolonged periods of sleep. What is prolonged mean? Chuck Scothon: Well, the way the fact is, we know that babies with the amount of hours that they sleep in a year will occasionally fall asleep wherever they might be. And that's why we recommend in the warning statements, state to not leave them unsupervised to move them and don't use it for prolonged sleep. And it's why we bought... Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Reclaiming my time. How long can my child safely sleep at an incline? Chuck Scothon: Again, if you're I don't have that specific number I you know, what I would say is that if you are when you're a child, Rep. Katie Porter (CA): But spending my time how long can they have sweet snuggle puppy dreams? Why are you marketing this as a product that will give people dreams? If it's not for sleeping? Chuck Scothon: Again, we referenced that as as a product where a baby will sit and play and Susan and I understand your point. But Rep. Katie Porter (CA): You market it, just reclaiming my time, Mr. Scothon, you market it as a product where babies will dream, aka sleep. And yet it is not safe for a baby to sleep in this position. So I have two questions for you. Will you commit to parents, consumers right now to change the name of this product to avoid and remove any mention of dreams or sleep from the name. Chuck Scothon: Back in 2019, we removed any reference to sleep on all those products, I will commit to going back through all of our current offering evaluating everything and to ensure that we are as clear because again, our commitment is to safety. And I will commit to going back through every item to make sure that we're sending the right message. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Okay, last question. Will you commit to including in all future bouncer or similar products like this, clear information for their parents that their children should never be allowed to sleep in these products because right now the only way you can find that is visiting the Fisher Price Q&A. Will you put it on the product and in the description of the product that it is not shown and should never be allowed to sleep? I will, we will, we do put that there. We have also committed to the safe start campaign which is an educational video campaign to help parents understand this just goes on Rep. Katie Porter (CA): It does not say on the target webpage not to allow your baby to sleep on this product. And it's called the Dreams Bouncer. Look at it. Look how cute the snuggle puppy is. I feel like taking a nap right now. Mr. Scothon, please don't market things about dreams or sleep or counting sheep or catching some Z's. If the product isn't safe to sleep in, I'm sure it's a wonderful bouncer. I raised my kids and Fisher Price products. I care about your company. I counted on your company. Please commit to taking action so that other parents can count on their kids getting safely to the teen years like mine have. Thank you very much and I yield back. 2:31:08 Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney: I want to be clear that I hold the federal government to the very same standard. And just this last week I reintroduced 3716 along with Congresswoman Presley with whom I've worked on the Children's Protection Act. Right now, federal agencies are not required to analyze or disclose the impact of regulatory changes on children, and they rarely provide evidence that their policies do no harm to America's youth. 2:32:16 Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney: HR 3716 would require federal agencies to undertake a childhood trauma impact study, before a rule is finalized to ensure the health and well being of all children are prioritized. These analysis would be conducted by review panels with expertise in children's health and education, as well as experience in advocating for the health and welfare of all children. It is absolutely crucial that the actions of industry and government alike are informed by expert analysis when it comes to the health and well being of children before it is too late. Hearing: , Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Manufacturing, Trade, and Consumer Protection, June 20, 2019 Witnesses Ann Marie Burkle Acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Robert Adler Commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission Elliot Kaye Commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission Transcript: 16:45 Robert Adler: I must caution that much of our work has been stymied by several statutory roadblocks. When the agency was established in 1973, we promulgated numerous critical safety rules, dealing with hazards that ranged from flammable children's sleepwear, shattering glass panes and unsafe toys. And we did it under the traditional rulemaking approaches in the Administrative Procedure Act. by my count, the agency wrote 24 safety rules in its first eight years or about three per year. In 1981, however, Congress imposed a set of cumbersome procedures on CPSC that have had the effect of stalling and lengthening our rulemaking efforts. And here's a statistic in the following 38 years since 1981, we've managed to eke out only 10 safety rules under these procedures, and that's about one every three and a half years versus three per year. And we've really written only one safety rule using these procedures in the past 10 years. Let me be blunt. I have little doubt that lives have been lost in injuries incurred because of these delays in our rulemaking, with no particular improvement in the quality of the standards that we write. 18:00 Robert Adler: I'd also must mention the owners information disclosure restrictions under which CPSC must operate. I refer to the provisions of Section 6B. Unlike any other federal Health and Safety Agency when CPSC wants to warn consumers about a particular hazard associated with the company's product, we first have to run our press release past the company to see whether they have any objections to it. And especially in recalls, that means companies can object to our proposed hazard warning, can threaten to sue us unless staff waters down the release. 32:33 Elliot Kaye: As I stated during our house oversight hearing earlier this year, people die because of Section 6B. It is that simple. 59:24 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Don't you agree that the public is better informed when you use the word recall rather than information campaign, they have no idea what an information campaign is, especially when products are sold secondhand on the internet. Ann Marie Burkle: I think that you're absolutely correct. Recall a certain clear than an information campaign. However, our recalls, mostly all of our recalls are voluntary. And so whenever we put out a press release, it has to be the parties have agreed to this press release and the language in it. In the event in the Britax. situation, the decision was made, we need to get this information out, and rather than suing it and be in prolonged litigation, as we have been, in other cases, the Magnus case in particular, where the consumer ends up with no remedy. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): But this lawsuit itself is a warning to consumers, correct. It's a public act. Ann Marie Burkle It can be. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): It's saying this product is unsafe. Ann Marie Burkle: But it isn't clear, it certainly raises the issue, but it isn't clear to the consumer what their remedies, and the lawsuit doesn't provide any remedy to the consumer. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): It eventually can provide remedies, but the lawsuit itself sends a signal when you allege as the CPSC that a product is unsafe. That's much more informative and dramatic to consumers then saying that this company has an information campaign, wouldn't you agree? Ann Marie Burkle: I agree, except for the the concern of the agency has to get unsafe products out of the marketplace. And is it in the magnets case that we get that case was sued and for six and a half years, we had no remedy for the consumer and the product is this in the marketplace to this day. And so the concern with britax or any other product where we've identified an issue with it, how we can get that out of the market quickest and away from the consumer to avoid any additional injuries or incidents is really the goal. 1:02:55 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): Instead of issuing recalls to protect the public, CPSC has increasingly relied on voluntary settlement agreements. And it has not even tracked whether the companies that have entered into these settlement agreements are adhering to them. Instead of loving civil penalties against bad actors, CPSC has been turning a blind eye to their wrongdoing, and instead of finalizing mandatory safety standards CPSC has continued to kick the can down the road allowing products like dangerously inclined infant newborn sleepers to proliferate. 1:03:42 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): Chairman Berkel since 2012, The CPSC has been aware of spontaneous crashes caused by the popular Bob jogging stroller made by Britex. crashes resulting in broken bones, torn ligaments and smashed teeth. After months of investigating the CPSC staff recommended the stroller be recalled. And in 2018 the commissioners voted in support of that recall with you Chairwoman Burkle being the lone dissenter. After the CPSC shifted to a Republican majority, the commission drastically changed his position instead of a recall. It decided on a voluntary settlement agreement with a stroller company, which centered on a one year public safety campaign. We are now almost halfway through the year. What evidence, Madam Chair, do you have that this information campaign has adequately addressed the hazard? Ann Marie Burkle: Sir, if I could, I would just like to correct the record. It wasn't a recall that I voted against it was a lawsuit because the company refused to do a recall and the recalls that we do at CPSC for the most part are voluntary. We reach an agreement with a company to get that product as quickly as we can out of the consumers hands to avoid any additional injuries or deaths. 1:06:15 Elliot Kaye: It is anticipated by Commissioner Adler and I that this education campaign would be a total debacle. I think that that has played out. And I think consumers have been very poorly served by it. And I've seen zero evidence that what has been done to date has been even remotely effective. 1:08:00 Elliot Kaye: But I do think the culture of the agency has changed from in my experience from one that was driven hard to try to take these products off the market, to making sure that industry was not upset with whatever is being done. , Montag Beeblebrox, December 28, 2009 , Warren G, December 24, 2009 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD233: Long COVID

14 juni 2021 | 64 min

"Long COVID" is the name for the phenomenon experienced by people who have "recovered" from COVID-19 but are still suffering from symptoms months after the virus invaded their bodies. In this episode, listen to highlights from a 7 hour hearing in Congress about Long COVID so that you can recognize the disease and know where to turn for treatment. Even if you didn't catch the rona yourself, Long COVID is far more common that you probably think and is almost certainly going to affect someone you know. Executive Producer: Michael Constantino Executive Producer: Robyn Thirkill Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes The Price of Health Care Articles/Documents Article: , By Jason Gale, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, June 8, 2021 Article: , By NewScientist, June 4, 2021 Article: , By Cindy Loose, Kaiser Health News, TIME, May 27, 2021 Article: , By Natalie Grover, The Guardian, May 18, 2021 Article: , By Alvin Powell, The Harvard Gazette, April 13, 2021 Article: , By Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service News Release: , National Institutes of Health, August 7, 2009 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 28, 2021 Witnesses: Francis Collins, M.D., Ph. D. Director of the National Institutes of Health John T. Brooks, M.D. Chief Medical Officer for COVID-19 Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Steven Deeks, M.D. Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco Jennifer Possick, M.D. Associate Professor at Yale School of Medicine Director of Post-COVID Recovery Program at the Winchester Center for Lung Disease at Yale-New Haven Hospital Natalie Hakala COVID patient Lisa McCorkell COVID patient Chimere Smith COVID patient Transcript: 1:01:34 Francis Collins: We've heard troubling stories all of us have people who are still suffering months after they first came down with COVID-19, some of whom initially had very few symptoms or even none at all. And yet today these folks are coping with a long list of persistent problems affecting many different parts of the body, fatigue, brain fog, disturbed sleep, shortness of breath, palpitations, persistent loss of taste and smell, muscle and joint pain, depression and many more 1:02:35 Francis Collins: I would like to speak directly to the patient community. Some of you have been suffering for more than a year with no answers, no treatment options, not even a forecast of what your future may hold. Some of you have even faced skepticism about whether your symptoms are real. I want to assure you that we at NIH hear you and believe you. If you hear nothing else today here that we are working to get answers that will lead to ways to relieve your suffering. 1:03:13 Francis Collins: New data arrived every day. But preliminary reports suggested somewhere between 10 to 30% of people infected with SARS COVID2 to may develop longer term health issues. To get a solid measure of the prevalence, severity and persistence of Long COVID we really need to study 10s of 1000s of patients. These folks should be diverse, not just in terms of the severity of their symptoms and type of treatment received, but in age, sex, race and ethnicity. To do this rapidly, we are launching an unprecedented metacohort. What is that? Well, an important part of this can be built on existing longitudinal community based cohorts are also the electronic health records of large healthcare systems. These resources already include 10s of 1000s of participants who've already contributed years worth of medical data, many of them will by now suffer from long COVID. This approach will enable us to hit the ground running, giving researchers access to existing data that can quickly provide valuable insights on who might be most at risk, how frequently individual symptoms occur, and how long they last. 1:04:24 Francis Collins: Individuals suffering with long COVID including those from patient led collaborative groups will be invited to take part in intensive investigation of different organ systems to understand the biology of those symptoms. Our goal is to identify promising therapies and then test them in these volunteers. 1:05:07 Francis Collins: Finally we need a cohort for children in adolescence. That's because kids can also suffer from long COVID and we need to learn more about how that affects their development. 1:05:35 Francis Collins: As we recruit volunteers, we will ask them to share their health information in real time with mobile health apps and wearable devices. 1:08:09 John Brooks: Although standardized case definitions are still being developed, CDC uses the umbrella term Post COVID conditions to describe health issues that persist for more than four weeks after a person is first infected with SARS-CoV-2 to the virus that causes COVID-19. Based on our studies to date, CDC has distinguished three general types or categories of post COVID conditions, although I want to caution that the names and classifications may change as we learn more. The first called Long COVID involves a range of symptoms that can last for months. The second comprises long term damage to one or more body systems or an organ and the third consists of complications from prolonged treatment or hospitalization. 1:09:45 John Brooks: Among these efforts are prospective studies that will follow cohorts of patients for up to two years to provide information on the proportion of people who develop post COVID conditions and assess risk factors for their development. 1:10:00 John Brooks: CDC is also working with multiple partners to conduct online surveys about long term symptoms and using multiple de-identified electronic health record databases to examine healthcare utilization of patient populations after initial infection. 1:20:21 John Brooks: Not only are there persons who develop post COVID symptoms, who we later through serology or testing recognizes having had COVID. But there's also there also were people who develop these post COVID conditions who have no record of testing, and we can't determine that they had COVID. So we've got to think carefully about what that how to manage that when we're coming up with a definition for what a post COVID condition is. 1:20:55 John Brooks: One of the most important things is to make sure that this condition is recognized. We need to make sure that folks know what they're looking at, as you've heard it's sort of protean. There are all sorts of different ways. Maybe we'll talk about this later. But the symptoms and ways that people present are very varied. And people need to be thinking, could this be post COVID and also taking patients at their word. You know, we've heard many times of patients have been ignored or their symptoms minimized, possibly because they didn't recognize that and COVID previously. 1:24:33 John Brooks: It's common, it could be as common as two out of every three patients. Study we recently published in our flagship journal, the Morbidity and Mortality weekly report suggested two out of three patients made a clinical visit within one to six months after their COVID diagnosis. So that is unprecedented, but people who've recovered from the flu or a cold don't typically make a scheduled visit a month later. It does seem that for some people, that condition gets better but there are definitely a substantial fraction of persons in whom this is going on for months. 1:25:37 Francis Collins: Basically what we did was to think of all of the ways in which we could try to get answers to this condition by studying people, both those who already have self identified as having long COVID, as well as people who just went through the experience of having the acute illness to see what's the frequency with which they ended up with these persistent symptoms. And if you look around sort of what would be the places where you'd find such large scale studies, one would be like we were just talking about a minute ago, with Mr. Guthrie, the idea of these long standing cohort studies, Framingham being another one where you have lots of people who have been followed for a long time, see if you can learn from them who got long COVID. And what might have been a predisposing factor that's part of the medical work. You could also look at people who have been in our treatment trials, because there are 1000s of them that have enrolled in these clinical trials. And they've got a particular treatment applied like a monoclonal antibody, for instance, it would be really interesting to see if that had an effect on how many people ended up with long COVID did you prevent it, if you treated somebody acutely with a monoclonal antibody, and then there are all these patient support groups, and you'll be hearing more for them in the second panel, were highly motivated, already have collected a lot of data themselves as citizen scientists, we want to tap into that experience and that wise advice about how to design and go through the appropriate testing of all this. So you put those all together, and that's a metacohort, where you have different kinds of populations that are all put together in a highly organized way with a shared database and a shared set of common data elements so we can learn as quickly as possible. 1:32:59 John Brooks: Extreme fatigue. I mean fatigue, as you probably heard, so bad, you can't get out of bed, it makes it impossible for you to work and limits your social life, anxiety and depression, lingering, chronic difficulty breathing with either cough or shortness of breath. That loss of smell persists for a very long time, which incidentally is particularly unique to this infection to the best I know. 1:37:10 Francis Collins: So the idea of trying to assemble such a large scale effort from multiple different kinds of populations of patients, is our idea about how to do this quickly and as vigorously and accurately as possible. But it won't work if we can't actually compare across studies and figure out what we're looking at. So part of this is the ability to define what we call common data elements, where the individuals who are going to be enrolled in these trials from various sources have the same data collected using the same formats so that you can actually say, if somebody had shortness of breath, how did you define that? If somebody had some abnormality in a lab test, what were the units of the lab test that everybody will agree so you can do apples to apples comparisons? That's already underway, a part of this metacohort is also to have three core facilities. One of those is a clinical sciences core, which will basically come up with what are the clinical measures that we want to be sure we do accurately on everybody who's available for those to be done. Another is the data sciences core, which will work intensively on these common data elements and how to build a data set that is both preserving the privacy and confidentiality of the participants, because these are people who are human subject participants in a trial, and also making sure that researchers have access to information that they can quickly learn from. And then there's a third core, which is a bio repository where we are going to be obtaining blood samples and other kinds of samples. And we want to be sure those are accurately and safely stored. So they can be utilized for follow up research. All of that has to fold into this. And so I'm glad you asked that question. That is the mechanism by which we aim to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts here even though the parts are pretty impressive. The whole is going to be pretty amazing. 1:41:03 Francis Collins: Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of the launch of RADX, Rapid Acceleration and Diagnostics. Another program made possible by the Congress by providing us with some additional funds to be able to build new platforms for technology to detect the presence of that SARS COVID-2 virus, increasingly being able to do those now as point of care instead of having to send your sample off to a central laboratory. And even now doing home testing, which is now just in the last month or so become a reality and that's RADX that developed those platforms. 1:41:30 Francis Collins: It was a pretty amazing experience actually. 1:41:40 Francis Collins: We basically built what we call the shark tank. And we became venture capitalists. And we invited all of those people who had really interesting technology ideas to bring them forward. And the ones that looked most promising, got into the shark tank and got checked out by business people, engineers, various other kinds of technology experts, people who knew about supply chains and manufacturing and all of that to make sure that we put the funds into the ones that were most promising. And right now, today, Congressman, there's about 2 million tests being done today, as a result of RADX that otherwise would not have been. 2 million a day, or 34 different technologies that we put through this innovation funnel. And that has opened up a lot of possibilities for things like getting people back to school where you have testing capacity that we didn't have before. 1:42:32 Francis Collins: What did we learn about that that applies to long COVID? Well, one thing I learned was we can do things at NIH in really novel ways that move very quickly when we're faced with a crisis like COVID-19 pandemic, we're applying that same mentality to this effort on long COVID normally would have taken us more than a year to set up this kind of metacohort. We're doing it in a couple of months because we need to utilizing some of those same mechanisms that you gave us in the 21st Century CARES bill, which has been a critical part of our ability to move swiftly through something called Other Transactions Authority. 1:43:16 Francis Collins: You saw in the President's budget proposal for FY-22, something called ARPA H, which is basically bringing the DARPA attitude to health that also builds on these experiences and will give us, if approved by the Congress, the ability to do even more of these very rapid, very ambitious, yes, high risk, but high reward efforts as we have learned to do in the face of COVID and want to continue to do for other things like Alzheimer's disease, or cancer or diabetes, because there's lots of opportunities there, too. 2:02:53 John Brooks: The number of people seeking care after recovering from COVID is really unprecedented. And it's not just people who had severe COVID it may include people had very mild COVID and in fact, we know there's a number of people who never had symptomatic COVID who then get these long symptoms. 2:03:09 John Brooks: Just historically, the other disease I can think of that may have a little analogy to this is polio. It was a more devastating sequentially that people lived with the rest of their lives. But it was thanks to the enrollment of some early cohorts of these patients followed over the course of their life, that when post polio syndrome later came up in the population, we had the wherewithal to begin to understand it. And it happens with been a condition in many ways, sharing some characteristics of this post COVID condition. 2:16:33 Francis Collins: The virus has been evolving. So one question is, how long will you be immune to the same virus that infected you the first time. And we think that's probably quite a few months. But then are you immune to a variant of that virus that emerges like the one called B117, which now is almost 60% of the isolates we're seeing in the United States after it ran through the UK and then came to us, that degree of immunity will be somewhat lower. The good news here, though, is that, and this may surprise people, the vaccine actually provides you with better broad immunity, then the natural infection, and you don't quite expect that to be the case. Usually, you would think natural infection is going to be the way that revs your immune system to the max and the vaccine is like the second best, it's flipped around the other way in this case, and I think that's because the vaccine really gets your immune system completely awake. Whereas the natural infection might just be in your nose or your respiratory tree and didn't get to the rest of your body. With a vaccine. We think that immunity lasts at least six months. But is it longer than that? We don't know yet because this disease hasn't been around long enough to find that out. And so far, the vaccines, the Pfizer, the Moderna, do seem to be capable of protecting against the variants that are now emerging in the US like this B117. 2:26:09 John Brooks: Anosmia are the loss of smell or change and smell is an often overlooked, but surprisingly common problem among people. This disease really seems to target that and cause it. I can say this, you know, I've been I've had a particular interest in this topic, the reading that I've been doing seems to suggest that the virus isn't necessarily targeting the olfactory nerves, the nerves that transmit smell, but more of the nerves that are sort of around in supporting those nerve cells, and it's the swelling and the inflammation around those cells that seems to be leading to some kind of neurologic injury. I will say the good news is that many people will eventually recover their sense of smell or taste, but there are others in whom this is going to be a permanent change in terms of treatment, smell training, interesting therapy, but it really works. And it's I really want to raise people's awareness around that because the earlier you can begin smell training, the better the chances that you'll recover your sense of smell. 2:43:13 John Brooks: We hold regular webinars and calls for clinicians they can call into these often are attended by 1000s of providers. We use these as an opportunity to raise awareness because I think you made a really critical point that patients feel like their doctors don't recognize their problem or they don't accept that it's possible they have this condition. We use those calls and webinars to raise awareness that this is a real entity. We also then publish papers and put out guidelines that illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management. 2:52:27 Francis Collins: But it certainly does seem that the risk of developing Long COVID goes up. It's fairly clear that the initial seriousness of the initial illness is somewhat of a predictor. Certainly people are in the hospital have a higher likelihood of long COVID than people who stayed out of the hospital but people who weren't hospitalized can still get it. It's just at a somewhat lower rate. 2:53:07 Francis Collins: Risk factors. older age people higher likelihood, women have a slightly higher chance of developing long COVID than men. BMI, obesity also seems to be a risk for the likelihood of long COVID. Beyond that, we're not seeing a whole lot of things that are predictive. And there must be things we don't know about yet. That would give you a chance to understand who's most vulnerable, to not be able to just get this virus out of there and be completely better, but we don't know the answer is just yet. 3:29:30 Francis Collins: First of all, let me say anxiety and depression is a very common feature of long COVID. But there are instances of actual induction of new psychoses sees individuals who previously were normally functioning who actually fall really into a much more serious psychiatric illness. We assume there's must be some way in which this virus has interfered with the function of the brain maybe by affecting vascular systems or some other means of altering the the way in which the brain normally works. But we have so little information right now about what that actual anatomic mechanism might be. And that's something we have to study intensively. 3:33:13 Francis Collins: When you look at what is the likelihood that somebody who is just diagnosed with COVID-19 is going to go on too long COVID It looks as if it's a bit higher for older people, but on the other hand, they're more young people getting infected. So if you go through the mathematics, you can see why it is that long. COVID seems to be particularly prominent now. And younger people who may not have been very sick at all with the acute infection, some of them had minimal symptoms at all, but now are turning up with this. 3:34:10 Francis Collins: We have 32 million people who've been diagnosed with the acute infection. SARS-COVI-2 to COVID-19. Let's say 10% is right. That means there are 3 million people going to be affected with this are already are and whose long term course is uncertain and may very well be end up being people with chronic illnesses. 3:35:07 John Brooks: It's a great opportunity to remind young people they're not immune to this right? This is really the audience you want to reach. Vaccination is something you should strongly consider. This affects people like you. 3:44:06 John Brooks: Some of the symptoms are the ones you see in adults, as you would expect, particularly pulmonary conditions, persistent shortness of breath, maybe cough, as well as persistent fatigue. There is also some evidence that he experienced what is called a brain fog, but it's probably some issue or probably neurocognitive in nature. And this is important for kids when they're growing and developing that, that we understand what's happening there because we don't want that to impair their ability to learn and grow properly. 4:35:54 Lisa McCorkell: I'm testifying today as a long COVID patient and as a member at the leadership team of the patient led research collaborative, a group of long COVID patients with backgrounds in research, policy and data analysis, who were the first to conduct research on Long COVID. My symptoms began on March 14 2020. Like many of what we call first waivers, I was not afforded a COVID test, because at the time tests were limited to hospitalized patients and those with shortness of breath, cough and fever, the last of which I didn't have. I was told that I had to isolate and within two weeks I'd be recovered. A month later, I was in worse health than in that initial stage. I couldn't walk more than 20 seconds without having trouble breathing, my heart racing and being unable to get out of bed the rest of the day. 4:37:18 Lisa McCorkell: Our ost recent survey asked about 205 symptoms over seven months and received almost 7000 responses. In our recent paper, 92% of respondents were not hospitalized, but still experienced symptoms in nine out of 10 organ systems on average. We found that patients in their seventh month of illness still experienced 14 symptoms on average. Most commonly reported were fatigue, post exertional, malaise and cognitive dysfunction. In fact, 88% experienced cognitive dysfunction and memory loss impacting their ability to work, communicate and drive. We found that this was as likely an 18 to 29 year olds as those over 60. Lesser known symptoms include tremors, reproductive changes, months long fevers and vertigo. Over two thirds require a reduced work schedule or cannot work at all due to their health condition. 86% experienced relapses were exerting themselves physically or mentally can result in a host of symptoms returning. 4:38:14 Lisa McCorkell: Long COVID is complex, debilitating and terrifying. But patients aren't just dealing with their symptoms. They're dealing with barriers to care, financial stability and recovery. Due to the lack of a positive COVID test alone, patients are being denied access to post COVID clinics, referrals to specialists, health insurance coverage, COVID related paid leave, workers comp, disability benefits, workplace accommodations and participation in research. When we know that not everyone had access to COVID testing that PCR tests have false negative rates of 20 to 40%. That antibody tests are more accurate on men and people over 40 and that multiple studies have shown that there's no difference in symptoms between those with the positive test and those without. Why are we preventing people who are dealing with real symptoms from accessing what they need to survive? 4:39:00 Lisa McCorkell: Even with a positive test patients are still being denied benefits or have to wait months until they kick in. Medical bills are piling up. People are being forced to choose between providing for themselves and their family and doing what's best for their body. 4:39:58 Lisa McCorkell: The stimulus checks that you all provided us to get through the pandemic. I do really appreciate them. But every cent of mine was spent on urgent care and doctor's visits where I was repeatedly told that mycotic cardio my inability to exercise and brain fog was caused by anxiety and there was no way that I could have had COVID since I didn't have a positive test. 4:41:37 Jennifer Possick: I hope to share my perspective as a pulmonologist caring for people with post COVID disease including Long COVID. So in Connecticut, the surge initially arrived in March of 2020. And within weeks thereafter, people were reaching out to us about patients who remained profoundly short of breath after their acute illness had passed. My colleagues and I were struck by how difficult it was to tell the difference between people recovering from mild, acute COVID and those who had required ICU level care. Both groups had the physical, cognitive and psychological fallout we would expect from a critical illness or a prolonged intubation. And in addition to being short of breath, they reported a host of other symptoms. I saw a teacher who had recurrent bouts of crushing chest pain, mimicking a heart attack, a young mother, who would have racing heartbeat and dizziness every time she played with her toddler, a local business owner who couldn't remember the names of his long term customers or balance his books, and a home health aide who didn't have the stamina or strength to assist her elderly clients. 4:42:53 Jennifer Possick: We've spent this year learning alongside our patients, about half of whom are never hospitalized. They are mostly working age, previously high functioning. Many were frontline or essential workers. Many were initially disbelieved. Their quality of life has been seriously impacted. Some can't walk to the mailbox or remember a shopping list, much less resume their everyday lives and work. 4:43:16 Jennifer Possick: They've used up their paid sick leave. They've cut back their hours they have left or lost jobs. They have difficulty accessing workman's compensation benefits and FMLA or securing workplace accommodations. Some have even cut back on food, rent or utilities to pay for mounting medical expenses. 4:44:03 Jennifer Possick: Consensus practice supports many forms of rehabilitation services but insurance approval and coverage have been beyond challenging and demand outpaces availability in any case. For patients with ongoing oxygen needs, requests for portable oxygen concentrators can be delayed or even denied complicating physical recovery and mobility. 4:44:27 Jennifer Possick: We are a well resourced program at an academic medical center. But we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone then we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined. Looking ahead, the magnitude of the challenge is daunting. There are over 31 million survivors of acute COVID-19 in the United States, and we don't know how many people will be affected, what kind of care they will need, or how long, or what kind of care that will entail or how long they'll need it. Research will ultimately help us to understand the origin of the symptoms and to identify effective treatment, but in the meantime, their care cannot wait. 4:49:37 Steven Deeks: First, we don't have a way of measuring this, right? Everyone everyone has got a cohort or a clinic measures it differently. They report stuff differently. As a consequence, the epidemiology is a mess, right? We don't really have a good sense of what's going on we need and this has been said before, a general consensus on how to define the syndrome, how to measure it and study so that we can all basically be saying the same thing. Deeks we don't know prevanlence Deeks we don't know prevanlen... 270.5 KB 4:50:06 Steven Deeks: We don't really know the prevalence of either the minimally symptomatic stuff or the very symptomatic stuff. 4:50:27 Steven Deeks: Women in almost every cohort, women are more likely to get this than the men. And This to me is probably the strongest hint that we have in terms of the biology, because women in general are more susceptible to many autoimmune diseases and we know why. And so paying attention to that fact why it's more common in women I think is providing very important insights into the mechanism and is directing how we are going about our science to identify therapies. 4:51:09 Steven Deeks: The same time people are getting acute COVID. They're living in a society that's broken. There's lots of social isolation. There's lots of depression, there's lots of people struggling, who did not have COVID. And the way this social economic environment that we're living in, has interacted with this acute infection is likely contributing to what's happening in ways that are very important but I think ultimately going to be hard to untangle and something that has not been discussed. 6:00:36 Jennifer Possick: I don't think that we can broadly say that there is any treatment that is working for all patients. We don't have that answer yet. As Dr. Deeks had suggested, there are things we try empirically. Sometimes they work for some patients other times not, but we're not in a position yet to say that this is the regimen, this is the treatment that works. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD232: American Rescue Plan

27 maj 2021 | 83 min

In March 2021, a year after the official beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the fully Democratic Party controlled Congress sent President Joe Biden their version of a COVID relief bill to sign, a bill that was rejected by the entire Republican Party. In this episode, examine the new law in detail to learn how it could help you and to judge whether this new law was something you would have liked your representatives in Congress to support. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law Veterans Choice Program American Rescue Plan Outline TITLE I - COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY Subtitle A - Agriculture Appropriates $4 billion for food purchases and grants for food suppliers to protect their workers from COVID Appropriates $500 million for "emergency pilot program" grants to impoverished rural communities to help them distribute vaccines with infrastructure and staffing, give them medical supplies, reimburse them for lost revenue. The program has to be in operation by mid-August 2021. Provides "such sums as may be necessary" for the Secretary of Agriculture () to give "socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers" payments covering "up to 120% of the outstanding indebtedness" as of January 1, 2021, which will pay off loans they received from the Farm Service Agency or Commodity Credit Corporation and loans guaranteed by the Department of Agriculture. "" are farmers or ranchers who "have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities." Subtitle B - Nutrition Extends food assistance benefits provided by the Coronabus from June 30, 2021 to September 30, 2021 and appropriates an additional $1.15 billion. Provides $1 billion in food assistance benefits to be split among the territories, which they will have until September 30, 2027 to use. Allows, but does not require, the Secretary of Agriculture to increase the amount of WIC benefits by $35 until July 11, 2021, if requested by the states. Appropriates $490 million. said that during 2020 and 2021, if a school is closed for more than 5 consecutive days under a public health emergency designation, families of children who are eligible for free or discounted school lunches will be able to get benefits valued at least as much as the school meals, to be distributed via the food stamp program, with money on EBT cards. This changes the dates so that it's valid "in any school year in which there is a public health emergency declaration" or "in a covered summer period following a school session" which will allow the state to continue the benefits for 90 days so that kids can continue to receive the meal credits during the emergency summers. TITLE II - COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, LABOR, AND PENSIONS Part 1 - Department of Education Appropriates over $122.7 billion, which can be used through September 30, 2023, for grants to the states. 90% of the money has to be given to local education agencies, including charter schools. 20% of the money needs to be used to address learning loss, via summer programs and extended school days and school years. The rest of the money can be spent at the local agencies discretion for activities they're already authorized to use Federal tax money for and to fund measures needed to protect students and staff from COVID. Any money not used must be returned to the Secretary of Education after one year. Appropriates $2.75 billion, which can be used through September 30, 2023, for private schools that "enroll a significant percentage of low-income students and are most impacted by the qualifying emergency." Appropriates $39.5 billion, which can be used through September 30, 2023, for colleges and universities. Part 2 - Miscellaneous Appropriates $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts Appropriates $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities Appropriates $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services Subtitle B - Labor Matters Appropriates $200 million, with half of that going to OSHA. Only $5 million is required to be spent on "enforcement activities related to COVID-19 at high risk workplaces" Subtitle C - Human Services and Community Supports Appropriates almost $15 billion, which has to be used before September 30, 2021, for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, which gives money to states for child care for low income families with children under the age of 13. States are authorized to provide child care funding to health care employees, emergency responders, and "other workers deemed essential" regardless of their income levels during the emergency period. Appropriates almost $24 billion for states to give to child care providers, regardless of any other federal money they have received. The grant will be determined by the child care provider's operating expenses and can be used to pay for employee salaries, benefits, and recruitment; rent or mortages; PPE and training; and mental health support for children or employees. Subtitle D - Public Health Appropriates $7.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to plan, prepare for, promote, distribute, administer, monitor, and track COVID-19 vaccines. Appropriates $1 billion, that does not expire, for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for activities "to strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States" in order to "improve rates of vaccination throughout the United States" Appropriates a little over $6 billion, which does not expire, "for necessary expenses with respect to research, development, manufacturing, production, and the purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, and ancillary medical products" to prevent and respond to COVID and "any disease with potential for creating a pandemic." Expands subsidies for health insurance provided by the Affordable Care Act to anyone who has been approved for unemployment insurance in 2021, and their subsidy level will be determined as if they didn't make more than 133% above the poverty level, regardless of actual income. This makes them eligible for the most general subsidy levels, which reduces their out-of-pocket limit by two-thirds and the insurance provider must pay 90% of health care costs. Subtitle E - Testing Appropriates $47.8 billion, which does not expire, to "detect, diagnose, trace, and monitor SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infections". This money must be used to implement a national testing and contract tracing strategy, provide technical assistance to states, "support the development, manufacturing, procurement, distribution, and administration of tests", which includes the supplies needed for those tests, PPE, and "the acquisition, construction, alteration, or renovation of non-federally owned facilities." Appropriates $1.75 billion for genomic sequencing, analytics, and disease surveillance, which will identify mutations and survey their transmission in our communities. This money can be used to "award grants for the construction, alteration, or renovation of facilities to improve genomic sequencing and surveillance capabilities at the State and local level." Appropriates $750 million to combat COVID "and other emerging infectious disease threats globally" Subtitle F - Public Health Workforce Appropriates $7.66 billion, which does not expire, to fund the creation and expansion of local public health workforces. The money will be granted to states who will then fund the wages and benefits for individuals hired to be contract tracers, community health workers, epidemiologists, laboratory personnel, communications and policy experts who are employed by the government or a non-profit, which can be public or private. Subtitle G - Public Health Investments Appropriates $7.6 billion, which does not expire, for grants for community health centers, which can be used for vaccine distribution, testing and contact tracing, to hire health care workers, and for community outreach. This money can be used to reimburse community health centers that they provided for COVID response sine January 31, 2020. Subtitle H - Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Appropriates $1.5 billion, that must be spent by September 30, 2025, for states to give to mental health service providers. Appropriates $1.5 billion, that must be spent by September 30, 2025, for states to give to substance abuse treatment providers. Subtitle K - Ratepayer Protection Appropriates $4.5 billion, that expires on September 30, 2022, for payment for energy expenses of low income families. Subtitle L - Assistance for Older Americans, Grandfamilies, and Kinship Families Appropriates over $1.4 billion for COVID related expenses of senior citizens. TITLE III - COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS Subtitle A - Defense Production Act of 1950 Appropriates $10 billion, available until September 30, 2025, to use the Defense Production Act for "the purchase, production (including the construction, repair, and retrofitting of government-owned or private facilities as necessary)" for distributing medical supplies and equipment to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting on September 30, 2022, the money left over can be used for any activity "necessary to meet critical public health needs of the United States, as determined by the President. Subtitle B - Housing Provisions Appropriates over $21.5 billion (on top of the $25 billion provided by the Coronabus), available until September 30, 2027, for grants to states that will be used to pay rent, utilities and "other expenses related to housing incurred due, directly or indirectly," to COVID for up to 18 months. People who qualify for unemployment benefits, had their income reduced, are low income, or can demonstrate that they are at risk of homelessness. The payments will be made directly to the landlord until the landlord does not agree to accept the payment, in which case the household can receive the money. All eligible grantees (states and territories) must be given at least 40% of their payments by May 11 States and territories can use up to 15% of the money for administration Unused money will begin to be returned and redistributed starting on March 31, 2022 Appropriates $5 billion, available until September 30, 2030, for emergency housing vouchers (Section 8) to people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or escaping a domestic violence or human trafficking situation. Prohibits families from getting another voucher after their voucher expires starting on September 30, 2023. Appropriates $5 billion, available until September 30, 2025, for "tenant-based rental assistance", development of affordable housing, housing counseling, and individual shelters than may be converted to permanent housing. Eligible people include people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, escaping a domestic violence or human trafficking situation, or veterans and their families if the veteran meets one of the other criteria. These services can be contracted out and the government "shall" enter into contracts "that cover the actual total program costs and administrative overhead" Appropriates over $9.9 billion, available until September 30, 2025, for a new Homeowner Assistance Fund. The fund will make payments "for the purpose of preventing homeowner mortgage delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, loss of utilities... of homeowners experiencing financial hardship after January 21, 2020." Assistance will include payments of mortgages, payments to take a loan out of forbearance, principal reduction, facilitating interest rate reductions, payments for utilities and internet service, insurance, and homeowner association fees. 60% of the money given to states has to be used to help homeowners at or below the median income level for their household size or the median income level for the United States, whichever is greater. The rest of the money has to go to "socially disadvantaged individuals". The states must receive their payments by April 25. If a state does not request payments by that date, that state will become ineligible for payments and the money will be divided among the other states. Subtitle C - Small Business (SSBCI) Appropriates $10 billion to bring back a program last used after the 2008 global recession to support small businesses recovering from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. $1.5 billion must be spent on businesses owned and controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" This includes privately owned businesses owned 50% or more by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" Publicly owned businesses with 51% or more of the stock owned by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" Institutions where a majority of the board, account holders and the community are "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals". "Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" are , but the "economically" disadvantaged group comes from the "socially" disadvantaged group. "Socially disadvantaged individuals" are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities. $500 million must be spent on businesses with fewer than 10 employees, which "may" include independent contractors and sole proprietors. Subtitle D - Public Transportation Appropriates almost $30.4 billion, available until September 30, 2024, for... Over $26 billion: For capital projects, planning, job access and reverse commute projects and operating costs for public transportation facilities and equipment in cities with fewer than 200,000 people. Over $1.6 billion: , For rail, ferry, and bus public transportation systems that increase the capacity of the route by at least 10%. Over $417 million: . For planning for rural areas, public transportation capital costs, public transportation facilities and equipment, joe access and reverse commute projects, and private providers of public transportation services. The grants cover 80% of the net project cost. $50 million: , "For public transportation projects designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable." The money is allowed to be used for operating expenses beginning on January 20, 2020, including payroll, operating costs due to lost revenue, purchase of PPE, and the administrative leave of personnel due to service restrictions. Increases the government's share of the costs from 80% to 100%. Prohibits money paying for route planning to be used to privatize a public transportation service. TITLE IV - COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Appropriates $570 million, available through September 30, 2022, for up to 600 hours of paid leave for full time employees, capped at $2,800 for each bi-weekly paycheck, for employees that have to quarantine, who have COVID, is caring for a family member with COVID, or is getting vaccinated or is sick from getting the vaccination. Eligible employees include executive branch employees, USPS employees, and working people in the DC court system. Eligibility ends on September 30, 2021. Appropriates $50 billion, available until September 30, 2025 for FEMA for "major disaster declarations" For the COVID emergency declared on March 13, 2020 "and for any subsequent major disaster declarations that supercedes such emergency declaration", FEMA funds "shall" be paid for 100% of disaster-related funeral expenses. Appropriates $400 million, available until September 30, 2025 for FEMA's emergency food and sh TITLE V - COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Adds non-profit organizations with fewer then 500 employees per location to the eligibility list for forgivable PPP loans. They can be eligible if they receive up to 15% of their money from lobbying activities and that amount was less than $1 million during the tax year that ended prior to February 15, 2020. Adds "internet only periodical publishers" who are "assigned a North American Industry Classification System code of 519130" to be eligible for forgivable PPP loans if they have fewer than 500 employees per physical location. Appropriates an additional $7.25 billion to the PPP program Appropriates $15 billion, which does not expire, for the Small Business Administration to make loans to businesses with fewer than 300 employees in low income communities. Appropriates $28.6 billion for restaurants, food stands, food trucks, caterers, bars, tasting rooms, including locations inside of airports. Does not include chains that had more than 20 locations on March 13, 2020, or publicly traded companies. $5 billion of that is reserved for businesses that made less than $500,000 in 2019. The maximum amount of each grant is $10 million, and no more than $5 million per physical location. The amount up to those caps of the grants is the amount of the business's pandemic related revenue loss. Valid for expenses from February 15, 2020 through at least December 31, 2021. The Administrator of the Small Business Administration can extend that until no later than March 11, 2023. Appropriates an additional $1.25 billion, that doesn't expire, to the for live performance venues. Reduces the grant amounts by any amount of PPP money that was received on or after December 27, 2020. TITLE VII - COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Subtitle A - Transportation and Infrastructure Appropriates almost $1 billion to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and $730 million to Amtrak's national network, available until September 30, 2024 for coronavirus related expenses. Appropriates $8 billion, available until September 30, 2024 for airports. No more than $800 million can be used to pay the rent and required minimum payments of airport concessions operators. To qualify for the funding, airports have to retain 90% of the number of employees they had on March 27, 2020 until September 30, 2021, unless granted a waiver due to environmental hardship. Subtitle B - Aviation Manufacturing Jobs Protection Appropriates $3 billion, available until September 30, 2023 for a new program that pays airplane manufacturers for some payroll expenses if they have "significant operations in, and a majority of its employees" in the United States, if they have laid off at least 10% of their workforce or experienced a 15% or more loss of revenue. Businesses that got money from the CARES Act or PPP program are ineligible. Subtitle C - Airlines Appropriates $14 billion for airlines and $1 billion for contractors conditioned on their agreement not to furlough anyone or reduce pay for workers before September 30, 2021, not buy back their own stock or pay out dividends before September 30, 2022, and limit executive pay. Subtitle D - Consumer Protection and Commerce Oversight Appropriates over $7.1 billion, available through September 30, 2030 to reimburse elementary and high schools and libraries for new telecommunications equipment and services including wi-fi hotspots, modems, routers, and connection devices. TITLE VIII - COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS Appropriates $14 billion in additional funding, available until September 30, 2023 for the "Veterans Community Care program" Prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging any co-pay or cost sharing for health care received by a veteran, and any co-pays and cost sharing already charged must be reimbursed, for the period between April 6, 2020 and September 30, 2021. Appropriates an additional $1 billion, available until spent. TITLE IX - COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Subtitle A - Crisis Support for Unemployed Workers Part 1 - Extension of CARES Act Unemployment Provisions Extends unemployment benefits through September 6, 2021 and extends the total number of eligible weeks from 50 to 79. Part 3 - Department of Labor Funding for Timely, Accurate, and Equitable Payment Appropriates an additional $2 billion, available until fully spent, to the Secretary of Labor to detect and prevent fraud and ensure the timely payment of unemployment benefits. Part 4 - Other Provisions For taxpayers whose gross income for "any taxable year beginning in 2020" is less than $150,000 and whose unemployment payments were less than $10,200, that income will not be taxable. Subtitle F - Preserving Health Benefits for Workers People who lose their employer paid health insurance due to being laid off or having their hours reduced can elect to have COBRA (a continuation of their health insurance) paid for by the government, which will provide tax credits to the employer who will pay the premiums. This applies between April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. Subtitle G - Promoting Economic Security Part 1 - 2021 Recovery Rebates to Individuals Provides $1,400 per person stimulus checks to people making less than $75,000 per year, with a phase out up to $100,000 per year. No checks are allowed to be issued after December 31, 2021. They check amounts will be determined based on either 2019 or 2020 tax filings, whatever the government has on file. Appropriates over $1.4 billion. Part 2 - Child Tax Credit For 2021, for taxpayers living in the United States will get a $3,000 payment for each child ages 6-18 and $3,600 for each child under the age of 6. The payments will be reduced for individuals who make more than $75,000 and couples who make more than $150,000. Payments will be made between July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021. Part 3 - Earned Income Tax Credit Doubles the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit for qualified taxpayers for 2021 who don't have children, increasing the maximum credit from $538 to $1,500. To qualify, you have to live in the United States at least half the year and have investment income below $10,000. People who make more than $21,430 as a single person or $27,830 jointly are not eligible. Part 4 - Dependent Care Assistance For 2021, eligible taxpayers can get up to 50% of up to $8,000 in childcare costs (capped at $16,000 for multiple children under the age of 12) reimbursed via a refundable tax credit. The credit phases out for families with income higher than $400,000 per year. Part 5 - Credits for Paid Sick and Family Leave Provides a 100% refundable tax credit for employers that provide paid sick leave, capped at $511 and 10 days per quarter. Provides a 100% refundable tax credit for employers who provide family leave, capped at $200 per day and $12,000 total. Allows self employed individuals to receive a tax credit for sick day related to COVID-19 from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, including getting tested, quarantining, illness, and getting the vaccine. The number of days is capped at 10 and its capped at $200 per day. Allows self employed individuals to receive a refundable tax credit for family leave for COVID-19 testing, illness, or vaccines. It's capped at 60 days and $200 per day. Part 6 - Employee Retention Credit Provides employers who had to partially or fully close during 2021 with a refundable tax credit up to 70% of the wages they pay to their employees capped at $10,000 per employee per quarter. Part 7 - Premium Tax Credit Increases the amount of money the government will pay towards the health insurance premium of low income individuals. People with incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level ($19,320 for individuals) can get coverage with no monthly premiums. Lifts the cap on the income level of individuals eligible for subsides, so now everyone is eligible and no one will pay more than 8.5% of their income towards health insurance premiums. This is only applicable for 2021 and 2022. Part 8 - Miscellaneous Provisions Repeals a tax benefit for corporations that would have become effective in 2021. COVID relief money provided via the Small Business Administration's program for restaurants will not count as gross income for tax purposes. COVID relief money provided via the Small Business Administration's program for small businesses, nonprofits, and venues will not count as gross income for tax purposes. Student loan forgiveness amounts will not be included in gross income from 2021 through 2025. Subtitle I - Child Care for Workers Appropriates over $3.5 billion for grants to states and territories for child care assistance. Subtitle J - Medicaid From March 11, 2021 until one year after the COVID emergency is declared over, Medicaid must pay for COVID testing, treatment, and vaccines free of out of pocket charges. Subtitle K - Children's Health Insurance Program From March 11, 2021 until the first day of the quarter after the one year anniversary of the COVID emergency being declared over, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) must cover COVID testing, treatment, and vaccines with no cost sharing requirements. The Federal government will pay 100% of the costs to the states. Subtitle M - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Appropriates $219.8 billion, available through the end of 2024, for states, territories, and tribal governments to "mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)". The money can be spent on "assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality" and "premium pay (up to $13/hour, capped at $25,000) to eligible workers... performing such essential work" and "for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction of revenue... due to the COVID-19 public health emergency" and "to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure." The money can NOT be used to offset a reduction in revenue caused by a tax cut or to deposit into pension funds. Appropriates over $130 billion, available through the end of 2024 for metropolitan cities ($45.5 billion), nonentitlement units of local government ($19.5 billin), and counties ($65 billion) to "mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)" for the same purposes with the same conditions placed upon the states (see above). Appropriates $10 billion, available until fully spent, for states, territories, and tribal governments to "carry out critical capital projects directly enabling work, education, and health monitoring, including remote options." Each state will get at least $100 million. Appropriates $2 billion, available until September 30, 2023, for counties and tribal governments for "any governmental purpose other than a lobbying activity." Subtitle N - Other Provisions Appropriates $8.5 billion, available until fully spent, for health care providers for "health care related expenses and lost revenues that are attributable to COVID-19. Health care providers must apply and can't double dip for the same expenses that have already been reimbursed or are supposed to be reimbursed some other way (for example, via insurance.) The money can be used for expenses derived from new construction of temporary structures, leasing property, purchasing medical supplies, hiring new workers and their training, and others. TITLE X - COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS Appropriates over $8.6 billion, available until September 30, 2022, for international health programs "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus". $3.75 billion will go to the State Department for "the prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS" in order to mitigate the impact on these programs from impacts of the coronavirus and support recovery from them. The vast majority of this money will be for "a United States contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria" $3.09 billion will go to USAID for COVID-19 relief that "shall include support for international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, for health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs." $930 million will be for "activities to address economic and stabilization requirements resulting from" coronavirus. $905 million will go to USAID and "shall include a contribution to a multilateral vaccine development partnership to support epidemic preparedness." Appropriates $500 million, available until September 30, 2022, to carry out the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, but the money can't be used to resettle refugees in the United States. Appropriates $580 billion, available until September 30, 2022, which "shall include support for the priorities and objectives of the United Nations Global Humanitarian Response Plan to COVID-19 through voluntary contributions to international organization and programs administered by such organizations." TITLE XI - COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS Appropriates over $6 billion for the Indian Health Service for COVID-19 related expenses. Appropriates $900 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal housing improvements, welfare services and water deliveries. Appropriates $750 million for housing assistance for native American communities. Appropriates $850 million for the Bureau of Indian Education, available until fully spent. Articles/Documents Article: , By Christine Hernandez, winnie, May 21, 2021 Article: , By Annie Nova, CNBC, May 20, 2021 Article: , By Christopher Flavelle and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, New York Times, May 20, 2021 Article: , By Tony Romm and Eli Rosenberg, The Washington Post, May 20, 2021 Article: , By Stephanie Steele, NewsRadio 610 Kona, May 18, 2021 Article: , By Nicholas Reimann, Forbes, May 18, 2021 Article: , By James T. Mulder, AL, May 12, 2021 Article: , By Alieza Durana and Carl Gershenson, The American Prospect, May 12, 2021 Article: , By David Moore, Sludge, Brick House, May 12, 2021 Article: , By Andrew Solender, Forbes, May 11, 2021 Article: , By Andrew Solender, Forbes, May 11, 2021 Article: , By Paul Krugman, The New York Times, May 10, 2021 Article: , By Thomas Franck and Brian Schwartz, CNBC, May 7, 2021 Article: , By Andrew Ackerman and Brent Kendall, The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2021 Article: , By Greg Heilman, as, May 3, 2021 Article: , By Chuck Lindell, Austin American-Statesman, April 27, 2021 Article: , By Drew Knight, KVUE, April 27, 2021 Article: , By Jamie Smith Hopkins, The Center for Public Integrity, April 25, 2021 Article: , By Chris Clayton, Progressive Farmer, DTN, Ag Policy Blog, April 15, 2021 Article: , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, April 14, 2021 Article: , By Carmen Reinicke, CNBC, April 13, 2021 Document: , Department of Labor, April 7, 2021 Article: , By Dylan Scott, Vox, April 1, 2021 Article: , By David Sirota, Andrew Perez and Walker Bragman, Newsweek, March 27, 2021 Document: , U.S. Congressional Research Service, March 18, 2021 Article: , By Amanda Pedvin Varma, Lauren Azebu, Steptoe, March 17, 2021 Article: , By Benjamin Fearnow, Newsweek, February 27, 2021 Article: , FEMA, February 26, 2021 Article: , U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 28, 2020 Article: , By Matt Reimann, Timeline, July 11, 2016 Article: , By Kyle Mizokami, Popular Mechanics, July 11, 2016 Additional Resources Twitter , U.S. Department of Agriculture , First Five Years Fund , The White House , Healthcare.gov , Healthcare.gov , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org Sound Clip Sources , Forbes, YouTube, March 3, 2021 , KGW, March 1, 2021 , Forbes, YouTube, May 1, 2021 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD231: Lights Out: What Happened in Texas?

26 april 2021 | 86 min

In mid-February 2021, a not-as-rare-as-it-used-to-be winter storm swept across the country, causing massive power outages in the state of Texas with deadly consequences. In this episode, hear the highlights of the congressional investigation into the causes of the extended power outages. They were foreseeable, and in fact foreseen, and similar power outages can be prevented; the only question is whether they will be. Executive Producer: Shelley Stracener Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Podcast/YouTube Episodes Bad Faith Podcast with Briahna Joy Gray and Virgil Texas. Articles/Documents Article: , By Bob Sechler, Austin American Statesman, April 6, 2021 Article: , By Kara Norton, PBS, March 25, 2021 Article: , CBS, March 4, 2021 Article: , By Jaclyn Diaz, npr, March 5, 2021 Article: , By Seth Blumsack, The Conversation, February 24, 2021 Article: , By Theresa Machemer, Smithsonian Magazine, February 19, 2021 Transcript: , Rev, February 17, 2021 Article: , By Umair Irfan, Vox, February 16, 2021 Article: , The Weather Channel, February 16, 2021 Article: , By Marcy de Luna and Amanda Drane, Houston Chronicle, February 14, 2021 Article: , By Alex Kasprak, Snopes, August 4, 2020 Additional Resources DeSmog , Electric Choice Campaign Finance Summary: , opensecrets.org Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, March 24, 2021 Witnesses: 2015 -: Mayor of Houston, TX 1989 - 2016: Member of the TX House of Representatives President and CEO of the Electric Reliability Council of TX (ERCOT) Testified after being given notice that he would be at the beginning of May Chairman of the Railroad Commission of TX of Environmental Progress Website: "He has helped save nuclear reactors around the world." President and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) The standard setting body for reliability associated with the electric power industry 1988 - 2002: Principal at McKinsey Transcript: 35:45 Cathy McMorris Rodgers: Recent trends show a transition away from coal and nuclear power plants designed to function as baseload capacity toward variable renewable energy sources with just in time natural gas backup. States like California that rely more on weather dependent renewables experienced energy failures on a regular basis. Indeed, California residents experienced blackouts on an ongoing annual basis as the state fails to manage summer electricity demand and wildfire risk. These events suggest that replacing nuclear plants with variable renewable energy sources could make energy grids less resilient. Policies that drive renewables at the expense of firm baseload put lives at risk. 49:09 Bill Magness: Let me give you a bit of background to explain ERCOT's role in the provision of electric power in Texas. We manage the flow of electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers. That's about 90% of the state's electric load and about 75% of the landmass of Texas, ERCOT does not own power plants. We do not own poles and wires. We are the grid operator, like air traffic control for the grid. We're also the settlement agent for the market. We do the bookkeeping and billing, we don't participate in the financial side of our market. Our number one job is to see that supply and demand on the grid are in balance at all times. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 46,500 miles of transmission lines and over 680 generating units. It also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk power market and administers retail switching for 8 million premises in the competitive areas in ERCOT. We're a membership based 501 c four nonprofit corporation governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. Our members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, and best droned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers and municipally owned electric utilities. ERCOT's not a policymaking body. We implement the policies adopted by the Public Utility Commission and the Texas Legislature and we operate under reliability rules adopted by the North American Electric Reliability corporation or NERC. Generators produce power from a variety of sources in ERCOT such as gas, coal, wind, solar and nuclear. These are private and public entities subject to regulation by various state and federal agencies. Transmission and distribution providers own the wires and transport the power to consumers subject to their own sets of federal and state regulations. 24 hours a day, seven days a week ERCOT monitors the entirety of the system to make sure that when transmission lines go down, we can work around them. We talk to generators instructing them to bring load onto the system or to back it down as needed. We oversee the scheduling of maintenance and more. The work is done with one purpose to maintain the 60 hertz frequency that's needed to ensure the stability of the grid. There's a constant balancing act to manage the supply and demand to ensure a stable frequency. During the week of February 15, the Texas electric market experienced more demand than available supply. At its worst the storm took out 48.6% of the generation available to ERCOT to balance the grid. We always keep reserves, but when you lose nearly half your generation, you're going to have a problem. And supply quickly diminished the frequency of the grid dipped perilously low. Many generators stayed off for days and this led the system unable to serve that high demand. We use the last tool in our toolkit. Planned outages. Calling for load shed to manage the stability of the grid. This crisis required are caught using procedures established for emergencies like this to call on Transmission providers to use control load shedding to balance the system and prevent a devastating blackout for the entire grid. avoiding a complete blackout is critical. Were to occur, the Texas grid could be down for several days or weeks while the damage to the electrical grid was repaired and the power restored in a phased and highly controlled process. The cost of restoration of the system. The economic loss for Texas and the personal costs of the well being of Texas citizens would be unfathomable. as terrible as the consequences of the controlled outages in February were if we had not felt the blackout power could have been out for over 90% of Texans for weeks. The steps we took were difficult, but they had to be taken and when power was able to be fully restored. The Texas electric delivery system immediately returned to its pre emergency conditions. 57:36 Christi Craddick: As the storm sat over Texas wind, solar, coal, nuclear oil and natural gas all experienced challenges. Through numerous conversations with the oil and gas industry and operators, we learned of frozen roadways preventing crews from accessing the fields. But the number one problem we heard reported from operators was a lack of power at their production sites. As outages spread across the state operators were unable to keep their systems functioning as power was cut. Some operators did need to preemptively shut in their wells for safety and well integrity purposes prior to the storm, beginning as early as February 9. Starting on Tuesday, February 16, as it was safe to return to the oilfield, crews arrived to find that their facilities were experiencing electricity outages. The oil fields simply cannot run without power, making electricity the best winterization tool. 59:13 Christi Craddick: For just one moment, I'd like to highlight the overall success of our LDC's our local distribution companies. They are the companies that provide gas directly to residential customers. If you have a gas powered stove, fireplace, furnace heat, you're an LDC customer. As millions of homes lost electricity in Texas, only 2,153 LDC customers experienced service disruption. That means that 99.95% of all customers did not lose gas. 4.6 million households in Texas utilize natural gas in their homes representing about 13 million Texans and these families were able to continue to heat their homes. 1:11:19 Rep. Diana DeGette (CO): ERCOT has stated publicly that the recent extreme weather in Texas, 'caused many generating units across fuel types to trip offline and become unavailable.' Isn't it true that during the extreme weather event, natural gas, wind, coal, solar and even nuclear power were forced offline? Bill Magness: Yes, Chairman, we did see periods of time where each one of those types of generation flipped offline. Rep. Diana DeGette: And as devastating as this was, I guess a lot of people who are surprised because, Mayor, you were in the Texas legislature for more than 25 years. And you said in your written testimony, the magnitude, and also today, that magnitude of damages was foreseeable, and preventable. The Texas grid must be designed with the full appreciation that climate change is real and extreme weather events can occur with throughout the year. Is it your view that Texas ignored these warnings, and missed several opportunities to fortify the grid against the threat of extreme weather? Sylvester Turner: Madam chair? The answer is yes. I was in the legislature when the winter storm occurred in 2011. In fact, I found House Bill 1986. That's specifically what mandated the Public Utility Commission to have ERCOT have a sufficient reserve to prevent blackouts. That was in 2011. Rep. Diana DeGette: Mr. Rob, I understand that NERC has issued a series of recommendations in recent years warning about reliability risk to the Texas grid, including after this same storm that hit Texas in 2011. Now, I know nurse inquiry is ongoing, but based on the information you have, did Texas winterize its power infrastructure to the degree NERC had recommended after the 2011 storm? Jim Robb: Well, the inquiry will affirm this but evidence was just absolutely not. Rep. Diana DeGette: Absolutely not. 1:14:05 Sylvester Turner: I will tell you we're not just relying on generators. We had a number of generators go under in wastewater treatment facilities. When the grid failed, some of those generators didn't kick in. What we are doing now is looking at piloting micro grids that actually tie into the Texas grid. And they are always on, they never turn off. They're on 24 seven. And so we're looking at power utilizing that for our key infrastructure projects with it for city facilities as well as in low income communities in the city. 1:15:03 Jim Robb: But the key to integrating large amounts of renewable resources is the balancing resource that that picks up generation when the renewable resources can't perform because of weather conditions or what have you. And today, the only real resource we have that can do that would either be hydro, as was mentioned earlier, or natural gas. And natural gas of those fuels is the most easily transported to to where it's needed. So gas is the answer to making this transition work. 1:17:36 Michael Shellenberger: I just will also mention I this talk and this idea that there is some inevitability to a transition towards variable renewable energy sources is incorrect. It is not shared by most energy experts. It is a consequence of policy choices. And if we want to have affordable, reliable, resilient electricity sources, we need reliable sources of electricity produced in large, efficient power plants, whether nuclear natural gas or coal. 1:33:06 Jim Robb: The report that we put out in 2011, called for very clear freeze protection on the generating plants and raised the issue as to whether that should extend into the natural gas supply as well. And what I understand Texas did was to put in place legislation that required weatherization, but not to a specific level. And it was not aggressively enforced standard. I think it was spot checked. And, and enforcement against that was relatively modest is my understanding. Why we're... No, I think that's one of the reasons why after the 2018 event, we concluded that we needed to move to a mandatory freeze protection standard for equipment and to have that be monitored and enforced by us. 1:50:24 Michael Shellenberger: If we're going to shut down all of our nuclear plants which are 20% of our electricity, and we better keep our coal plants around, and I say this is somebody that has long advocated the transition from coal to natural gas and nuclear. 1:58:32 Christi Craddick: I believe that transmission pipes are in the ground and that's natural insulation, where we do have some challenges when you had the electric TriCity roll off into fields and across the state than we did our problems with compressors that are electric compressors and or natural gas compressors. Like you can't move stuff in a pipe if you've got an up compressor without electricity. So but the pipes themselves did not freeze and I think that's been a mis communication across the board when you've looked at the press communication 2:04:12 Michael Shellenberger: Civilization depends on reliable electricity. I think everybody agrees with that. But then you need to people need to explain how it is that variable renewable energy sources which are weather dependent, are somehow add up to being reliable and resilient at grid levels they don't, that actually just adds up to less reliability and less resilience, all else being equal. 3:02:55 Rep. Marc Veasey (TX): We also know that many natural gas producers and processors failed to file the necessary paperwork with the electric utility to be listed as critical infrastructure. That meant that when we have rolling blackouts, and when they were initiated, these natural gas companies didn't have the electricity necessary to pull gas from underground, which in turn led to a natural gas shortage of power plants and created a downward spiral of more blackouts. Right now, it's optional for these companies to file this paperwork, but Charlie Garin also from Fort Worth, he has a bill, Commissioner Craddick, that he is going to file that will answer some of these concerns that I just laid out. And I want to ask you, Commissioner Craddick should ease energy producers, who we all know are critical to keep the lights on. So we won't have a repeat of what we saw, should they be required to file this paperwork? And should it be included on the electric utilities critical list? Christi Craddick: I think it's an important piece that frankly, my agency hadn't been communicated from ERCOT that this existed, but to if you look at for these forums, and the second the the time when we finally realize this form existed, because it was based on summertime, not winter time. But when we realized that we've now sent it from our agency sent a letter to every single operator that we regulate, suggesting that they file this form, but youdon't think it should be required.The challenge we still have though, is ERCOT today doesn't prioritize gas fields. It's only gas processing plants for it, so we'd like to encourage ERCOT to remap the system and understand that the the whole system needs to be included not just part because we had operators who told us they would have been happy to file the form had one, they known about it and two, had have been included in the form and they were not. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, March 11, 2021 Witnesses: Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy James B. Robb, North American Electric Reliability Corporation , Hunt Energy Network, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Michael D. Shellenberger, Environmental Progress Manu Asthana, PJM Interconnection Transcript: 11:51 Jim Robb: There are three major trends which are fundamentally transforming the bulk power system and challenging our historic reliability paradigms. First, the system is decarbonizing rapidly and this evolution is altering the operational characteristics of the grid. policies, economics and market designs are resulting in significant retirements of traditional generation, new investment is increasingly focused on developing carbon free generation with variable production profiles. And in this resource mix, natural gas fired generation is becoming ever more critical, both for both energy to serve load and balancing energy to support the integration of these variable resources. Second, the grid is becoming more distributed. The improved economics of solar is a key example. These smaller scale resources have been deployed on both the bulk electric as well as distribution systems and in many cases reside behind the meter. And third, the system is becoming increasingly digitized through smart meters and digital control systems. These investments greatly enhanced the operational awareness and efficiency of grid operators, but at the same time, it heightens our exposure to cybersecurity risk. 12:59 Jim Robb: Our reliability assessments are one important way we evaluate the performance of the grid, identify reliability trends, anticipate challenges, and provide a technical platform for important policy discussion. With growing reliance on variable and just in time resources, we are developing more advanced ways to study energy supply risk. Our assessments consistently have identified three regions of the country, particularly exposed to these dynamics: California, Texas and New England. Last August, a massive heat wave across the west caused an energy supply shortage in California in the early evening, solar energy was ramping down and the grid operator was unable to import power as planned. due to high demand throughout the West, Cal ISO was forced to cut power to approximately 800,000 customers. Among the lessons learned from this event are one the critical need for reliable ramping resources to balance load, and second, the need for improved ways to estimate resource availability when the system is under stress. In New England, cold weather exacerbates its dependence on limited pipeline capacity and a handful of critical fuel assets. An early January coldsnap in 2018, led to natural gas shortages and fuel oil was burned to preserve reliability. Had that coldsnap not abated when it did. The fuel oil inventory would eventually be exhausted, and I assume New England almost certainly would have needed to shed load. It was a classic near miss event. Insufficient and inadequate weatherization of generation in Texas in the middle South states has been a growing concern for us since 2012. After a cold weather event caused loadshedding for 3 million customers in Texas in 2011. We developed a winter preparation guideline to focus industry on best practices and started conducting significant outreach on winter preparedness. Following additional extremes and unplanned load shedding in that region in 2018. We concluded that these events could no longer be treated as rare, and that a mandatory approach was warranted. As a result, nerf began the process of adding mandatory weatherization requirements into our reliability standards. 15:00 Jim Robb: First, more investment in transmission and natural gas infrastructure is required to improve the resilience of the electric grid. Increased utility scale wind and solar will require new transmission to get power to load centers. Next, the regulatory structure and oversight of natural gas supply for the purposes of electric generation needs to be rethought. The natural gas system was not built and operated with electric reliability. First in mind, policy action and legislation will likely be needed to assure reliable fuel supply for electric generation. As the critical balancing resource natural gas is the fuel that keeps the lights on. Third, the electric and natural gas systems must be better prepared for extreme weather conditions which are frankly becoming more routine. Regulatory and market structures need to support this planning and the necessary investment to assure reliability. And finally, investment in energy storage or alternative technologies needs to be supported to have a viable alternative to natural gas for balancing variable resources. A technology which can be deployed cost effectively and at massive scale with adequate duration to deal with supply disruption lasting for days rather than hours is required. 19:13 Mark A. Gabriel: First, every former generation can be disrupted by extreme temperatures. Second, a competitive market can discourage long term capital investment in reliability and resilience measures. And finally, costs move in both directions in competitive markets, and electricity will flow often times at impractical prices. 21:07 Mark A. Gabriel: In conclusion, power and gas markets in the United States are marvelously efficient at driving out inefficient, generating huge units, increasing financial liquidity and expanding the sale of electricity. However, the real question is whether electricity and to a lesser extent natural gas are logical commodities to participate in open markets. Unlike pork bellies and orange juice trading electrons has consequences far greater than the availability of bacon or a morning refreshment. 23:25 Pat Wood: Today I'm CEO of the hunt energy network. We're building storage batteries, small batteries at the distribution level around the state of Texas. I think the role of energy storage in the future is going to be one that will be just nowhere to go but up. As we bring on intermittent resources, understand the members concerns and lived through them as well with intermittent resources or variable resources that we've got to do something to firm those up. Storage is that golden bullet that as a regulator, I didn't have 15-20 years ago, and we were talking through market issues across from California to New England. But storage is just beginning. It's got to scale up but it's a pretty interesting place to be. 46:00 Sen. John Barrasso (WY): You've written and you see, 'California is big bet on renewables and shunning of natural gas and nuclear is directly responsible for the state's blackouts and high electricity prices.' Could you expand upon your comments for the committee? Michael D. Shellenberger: Well, sure, there was a root cause analysis published by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California grid operator Kaiso, which made a very similar point though, in a more muted fashion. That point was made very dramatically in the midst of the crisis last August in a conference call with reporters, where the grid operator specifically pointed to the closure of San Onofre nuclear power plant, which was about 2200 megawatts of power, as well as the closure of natural gas plants as the really the main factors that resulted in the shortage of energy. 46:49 Sen. John Barrasso (WY): You know, you've written a bit and you said, quote, have some have long pointed to batteries is the way to integrate unreliable renewables onto the grid. However, that batteries you say are simply not up to the task today and you went on to explain indeed for renewables to work batteries would need to be able to store the power for weeks, and perhaps even months. Can you expand upon the comments for the committee? Michael D. Shellenberger: Sure. Well, we have one of the largest battery installations in the world in Escondido, California, and it provides power for 16,000 Californians for about four hours. There's almost 40 million Californians, the cost is prohibitive prohibitively high and in fact, most advocates of renewables now, no longer think that lithium batteries are going to be an important form of storage beyond you know, managing minutes or hours. 52:38 Mark A. Gabriel: I think what we also have to look at and understand is how can we use the existing transmission system differently. For example, there are seven ties between the eastern and western grid that are perfect examples of 1980s technology, which could clearly be upgraded and quite frankly, could be done within a two to four year timeframe. So we'd have some immediate benefit there. 59:47 Mark A. Gabriel: Gotta consider in the United States only 3% of the 90,000 dams have power capabilities to them. And if anything, I think it's a it's a valuable discussion to have to make sure that we are thinking about increasing hydro power, as it is a carbon free resource, and one that can help bolster a grid in times of great stress. 1:02:08 Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): Coal has become completely unaffordable as a power source. If you look at Lazard or any of the independent analysis of what wholesale costs are for various different generations, and you have solar at three to four cents a kilowatt and wind at three to five cents a kilowatt, and then you have coal at 7 to 16 cents a kilowatt, or nuclear at 13 to 20 cents a kilowatt, you understand what some of the market pressures are here, and why we're being asked for example, to subsidize nuclear power. 1:03:00 Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): I'd ask what policies you think would be wise to accelerate the deployment of the storage that you mentioned, on the grid both in Texas and nationally? Pat Wood: Well, I think getting a diversity of supply chain, we clearly are dependent on China and a few other countries in East Asia for the current technologies that I think Mr. Shallenberger pointed out correctly, that there are a lot of things other than lithium ions, but those are what are in all the EV's and in certainly all the storage technology. So the cost upstream if there could be some American or at least North American European suppliers to that. The policies in the US make it easy make it as easy to interconnect a battery as we've made it to connect gas plants and windmills. Yeah, we're of course version 1.0 talking with our utilities. We haven't done it before, but it's it's not easy. Learning to get these things done one by one. I think the market policies in most of the organized markets are very friendly to battery so I think we've got that box checked. Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): So interconnection is really a big... Pat Wood: Interconnection is important. 1:04:40 Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): Would it have been helpful for Texas to be able to import power either from the east or the west? In this recent episode, because I noticed that El Paso power for example, El Paso didn't have the same rolling blackouts because they were able to pull from the western grid. Pat Wood: And they are directly interconnected with it. We do have some gates in the wall. Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): Yes, you have DC connections. But if you don't have direct connections? Pat Wood: Correct, that's right. And there actually are proposals to put more of the DC ties in both east and west. To be honest, a few gigawatts wouldn't wouldn't hurt. But it wouldn't have saved us from really what was a 20 gigawatt short shortfall at the... Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): What was the single largest shortfall from which generation source? If you look at it Pat Wood: Well, our largest supplier on a normal day is gas. So the impact of gas dropping both at the supply level and then at the power plant level. That's that's the interesting thing to figure out is how much was related to the lack of winterization, which we should have learned from the 2011 experience, how much was done from that, and how much actually had to do with the supply system or the upstream issues from the gas wells all the way down to the power plant. 1:23:15 Sen. James Lankford (OK): Natural gas is quick to be able to turn on. But when you're not asked for much for a long period of time, and then suddenly you ask for a lot in a short period of time, especially an extremely cold weather event, then suddenly it's like, you know what, we can't turn it all on that fast that much. Is there a tipping point that you're seeing for providing other fuels that are out there that for instance, were 40, 50, 60% renewables and you've got a very small portfolio of natural gas, and then the wind stops blowing, and it's a cloudy day, and you suddenly don't have those. And he asked natural gas to turn on 50% suddenly, that's just not realistic, because what is upstream is not able to turn on that fast. Is that a realistic conversation? Jim Robb: I think that's that is the conversation that needs to take place. Natural gas plants are the most flexible that we have in the system to accommodate the variability that we see with large amounts of variable resources. And it is a real challenge for the natural gas industry to provide that kind of capacity that quickly. It's not designed to do that. But that's what the electric industry needs. And this is the question that I think policymakers and probably legislators are going to have to tackle which is how do we create a construct for natural gas to be able to serve these very unique needs of the electric system for which it's not designed to do 1:35:40 Sen. Roger Marshall (KS): How could Burke investigate if there was anything nefarious, what does that process look like? And I'm not saying there is. I'm just it just hard for me to imagine just prices going up exponentially. And again, I think of that, you know, my parents on a fixed income, what's happening to their electric bill and their heating bill coming up? Right now was well, how would Burke investigate this? Pat Wood: NERC does have authority over market manipulation, or just markets in general in the interstate markets, of course, interstate natural gas pipeline serve Kansas, Oklahoma and parts of Texas as well. We have an interest state that separate but the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, they were certainly involved with us 20 years ago, when we unpacked the issues in the California crisis. The state attorneys general, as I mentioned, the one in Texas is already investigating this issue. Those three, three camps for CFTC. For the futures foryour experiences, that takes decades to go through,well, no, it doesn't. I mean, you can unpack in this digitized age. We have a lot more capability that in 2021 than we did in 2001 to review trades in this matter or in any matter much more expeditious. 1:37:40 Sen. Angus King (ME): Can you tell us unequivocally that wind turbines did not cause the problem in Texas? Pat Wood: They did not cause the problem, they were honestly the only thing was like gas and coal and everywhere. Sen. Angus King (ME): So every... Pat Wood: Everything could have helped solve it more faster. But you know, when was slow to get back, and so was coal and so was gas.Sen. Angus King (ME): And I want to mention that the wind project that I worked on in Maine has been online in 10 years in Maine. And it's never been down because of the cold that I know of it was a question of they're not weatherizing their entire turbine. So there's nothing intrinsic in the wind power that can't survive cold weather. 1:40:25 Manu Asthana: But I think the the really exciting part of electric vehicles and PJM did a study with the University of Delaware on vehicle to grid. We actually piloted having vehicles provide regulation services off of their batteries. And, you know, people were able to earn $100 a month in the pilot, so I think there's a lot of capability that will come to the grid that hopefully can add resilience through EV's as well. , David Pakman Show, February 17, 2021 , MSNBC, February 16, 2021 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative

12 april 2021 | 96 min

The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Coronabus both enacted laws aiming to stop China from advancing their Belt and Road economic system that may soon be able to compete with the "rules based international order", which the United States has been leading the implementation of since the end of WWII. In this episode, learn about the NDAA's most significant changes, including a new U.S. military build up in China's neighborhood: The Pacific Deterrence Initiative. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Minerals are the New Oil Combating China Bills National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 Doubles the amount of money allowed to be spent on longer term contracts from $574 million to over $1 billion TITLE VII - ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS Beginning January 1, 2023, the Defense Department will be prohibited from buying printed circuit boards that are either fully or partially manufactured in North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran. The Defense Secretary has the ability to waive these restrictions TITLE X - GENERAL PROVISIONS Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to spend up to $15 million from the Operations and Maintenance account "in any fiscal year for clandestine activities for any purpose the Secretary determines to be proper for preparation of the environment for operations of a confidential nature." Intelligence activities are excluded. This authority can be delegated for expenses up to $250,000. The Defense Secretary has to tell Congress about these expenditures in a report due once per year at the end of the year. Prohibits the military from transferring free bayonets, grenades (but they can still transfer stun and flash bang grenades), weaponized tanks, and weaponized drones to domestic law enforcement. Beginning in 2023, Defense Department funding - except for funding given directly to students - can be given to an college or university that hosts a Confucius Institute. "Confucius Institute" is defined as "a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded" by the Chinese government. The Defense Secretary has the ability to waive this prohibition. This was based on a co-authored by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Rep. Donna Shalala of Fl Whenever a member of the armed forces, including the National Guard, respond to a civil disturbance, each individual has to display their name and the name of the Federal entity they are representing. This won't apply to individuals who don't wear uniforms when performing their regular duties or who are performing undercover operations. TITLE XII - MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS Prohibits troop levels in Afghanistan from being reduced below 2,000 until the Defense Secretary submits a report Reauthorizes the Department of Defense military assistance for training, equipment, supplies, and support for the Government of Iraq and "other local security forces" for combatting ISIL and security the territory of Iraq until December 31, 2021 but cuts the funding to $322.5 million, down from $645 million. t was over $1.6 billion in 2016. Reauthorizes the Department of Defense assistance for training, equipment, supplies, support, stipends, and facilities for "vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals" until December 31, 2021 In response to Turkey's decision to buy an air defense system from Russia on July 12, 2019, the President "shall" impose five or more sanctions on each person who participated in buying that system. The sanctions were required to be implemented by the end of January 2021. The sanctions are allowed to be removed after one year if the S-400 air defense system has been removed from Turkey By the end of 2021, the Secretary of Defense has to submit a classified report with an unclassified summary describing the military postures of Russia and China in southeastern Europe and assess the cost, feasibility, and infrastructure requirements of increasing US Armed Forces in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and other locations. Requires the Secretary of Defense to create a Pacific Deterrence Initiative to improve the force posture in the Indo-Pacific region, primarily west of the International Date Line The purpose is to... Strengthen the presence of the US Armed Forces in the region Pre-position equipment, weapons, and fuel. Perform exercises, training, and experiments Build the militaries of allies and partners and enhance cooperation with them Authorizes over $2.2 billion Extends the prohibition on export licenses being issued to send weapons to the Hong Kong police force that was enacted on November 27, 2019 until December 31, 2021 and expands the prohibition on exports to include "crime control items". 'The Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations" "Any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." We will "resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan" It is US policy to continue selling weapons to Taiwan, including weapons for air defense, undersea warfare, intelligence, surveillance, anti-armor, anti-ship, and coastal defense systems. US policy is to perform joint military exercises with Taiwan. Congress says that... "continued military aggression by the Government of China along the border with India is a significant concern" "attempts by the Government of China to advance baseless territorial claims, including those in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and with respect to Bhutan, are destabilizing and inconsistent with international law." It is United States policy to... "support a civilian-led political transition in Sudan that results in a democratic government..." "support the implementation of Sudan's constitutional charter for the transitional period" (which began on August 17, 2019 and is effective for 39 months, which would be November 17, 2022) Part of our strategy is "promoting economic reform, private sector engagement, and inclusive economic development..." and "supporting improved development outcomes, domestic resource mobilization, and catalyzing market-based solutions to improve access to health, education, water and sanitations, and livelihoods..." Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" authorized by the , which allows him to use money from the State Department's Economic Support Fund, and development assistance in agriculture, health, education, housing, counter-drug operations, disaster relief, energy, technology, natural resources, and technical assistance for the government and/or central bank. Authorizes $20 million per year in 2021 and 2022 Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 and the ,which created the United States International Development Finance Corporation, to "promote economic growth, increase private sector productivity and advance market-based solutions to address development challenges" Authorizes $80 million per year for 2021 and 2022 Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 and money for international military education and training and money for peacekeeping operations to "support civil society and other organizations", for "professional training of security force personnel", and to support provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 and Abyei protocol. Authorizes $20 million per year for 2021 and 2022 Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 to assist investigators to document violations of human rights committed by the former President Omar al-Bashir and the Transitional Military Council since June 30, 1989. Authorizes $10 million per year for 2021 and 2022. Effective January 1, 2020 (backdated), repeals the and the The United States will give Israel at least $3.3 billion per year from the Foreign Military Financing Program from 2021 through 2028 (at least $26.4 billion). The amount used to be capped; this law changed it so that is a minimum payment. Authorizes the President to transfer precision-guided missiles from our reserves to Israel The authority to transfer our missiles to Israel will expire at the beginning of 2024 TITLE LVXXXIV - MISCELLANEOUS Congress is concerned that "Russia and China have conducted military exercises together in the Arctic, have agreed to connect the Northern Sea Route, claimed by Russia, with China's Maritime Silk Road, and are working together in developing natural gas resources in the Arctic." TITLE XCIV - SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY MATTERS The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology will conduct a study that can include... How China's role in international standards setting organizations has grown over the last 10 years China's standardization strategy outlined in "Chinese Standard 2035" An examination of whether international standards for technology are being designed to promote Chinese interests outlined in the "Made in China 2025" plan Recommendations on how the United States can "mitigate" China's influence in setting standards and increase the United States public and private sector participation in the standards setting institutions TITLE XCVII - FINANCIAL SERVICES MATTERS Makes it the policy of the United States to disqualify China from receiving designed for low and middle income countries. This was TITLE XCIX - CREATING HELPFUL INCENTIVES TO PRODUCE SEMICONDUCTORS FOR AMERICA The Secretary of Commerce has to create a program that provides tax money to "a private entity, a consortium of private entities,, or a consortium of public and private entities..." to incentivize them to invest in creating, assembling, testing, packaging, or researching semiconductors in the United States. The money can not be given to "a foreign entity of concern" Tax money for any individual project is capped at $3 billion, but that limit can be waived with the recommendation of the Defense Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the President. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to create a "Multilateral Semiconductors Security Fund" The fund would be used to create "measurably secure semiconductor supply chains" The Secretary of State can use money in the fund to give to foreign governments on the condition that those countries enact restrictions on exports to China. The Secretary of State is encouraged, but not required, to establish transparency requirements for subsidies or other financial benefits given to semiconductors inside or outside the participating countries and "promote harmonized treatment and verification processes for items being exported to a country considered a national security risk by a country participating". Coronabus Outline DIVISION B - COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 TITLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS : Prohibits NASA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), or the National Space Council (NSC) from working with, contracting from, or coordinating "in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company" unless the activities are "specifically authorized" by a law enacted after the Coronabus. This can be waived if NASA, the OSTP, or NSC consults with the FBI and finds that the cooperation would "pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of technology, data, or other information with national security or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned company." DIVISION K - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT : State Department funds must be used to advance the adoption of 5G in countries receiving our tax money and prevent the creation of communications networks, including 5G, promoted by China "and other state-backed enterprises that are subject to undue or extrajudicial control by their country of origin." $1.482 billion must be spent implementing the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Asia Reassurance Initiative of 2018. Requires at least $300 million in additional money to be spent on a new Countering Chinese Influence Fund Almost $135 million was appropriated for the government of Burma before the military coup. At least $85 million is appropriated for the government of Cambodia, conditioned on Cambodia "verifiably maintaining the neutrality of Ream Naval Base, other military installations in Cambodia, and dual use facilities such as the Dara Sakor development project. There is no certification required for "democracy, health, education, and environment programs, programs to strengthen the sovereignty of Cambodia, and programs to educate and inform the people of Cambodia of the influence activities of the People's Republic of China in Cambodia." At least $80 million will be given to Laos At least $3 million from the "Democracy Fund" will be given to Hong Kong for "democracy and internet freedom programs for Hong Kong, including legal and other support for democracy activists" as long as none of this money goes to the Chinese government. Prohibits counter-drug money for the Philippines, "except for drug demand reduction, maritime law enforcement, or transnational interdiction." At least $170 million will be given to Vietnam Requires at least $290 million to be spent on the Countering Russian Influence Fund : Requires over $500 million to be available for "assistance" for Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, which can be spent on the Central America Regional Security Initiative. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras can only get 50% of their allotted funding unless the Secretary of State certifies that the governments are taking actions against corruption, enacting reforms, informing their citizens that it’s dangerous to come to the United States, enhancing border security, and “resolving disputes involving the confiscation of real property of United States entities.” Those three countries are also ineligible for foreign military financing. Requires at least $74.8 million to be spent on the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Requires at least $33 million to be spent on "democracy programs" in Venezuela Adds an additional $700 million to the Economic Support Fund, available until September 30, 2022 for Sudan. DIVISION Z - ENERGY ACT OF 2020 The Director of National Intelligence, starting in the beginning of 2022 and every year after, will have to conduct a detailed report on China's investments in minerals and if their investments have increased their control over the global supply of those minerals. DIVISION FF - OTHER MATTER TITLE III - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROVISIONS Congress finds that... "China's attempts to dictate the terms of Taiwan's participation in international organizations has, in many cases, resulted in Taiwan's exclusion from such organizations even when statehood is not a requirement..." Makes it US policy to advocate for Taiwans inclusion in international organizations that do not require statehood, including the United Nations, World Health Assembly, and others. : By the beginning of July, the Secretary of State has to submit a five year strategy to Congress for changing the governing, economic, and security structures of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Economically, the priorities must include: "Supporting market-based solutions to eliminate constraints to inclusive economic growth" "Identifying... a role for relevant United States agencies and United States private sector in supporting efforts to increase private sector investment..." Security priorities must include: "Implementing the Central America Regional Security Initiative" The strategy can be created in partnership with "civil society and the private sector in the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras." The strategy will have to be posed on the State Department's website, but it is allowed to be partially classified. : By the beginning of July, President Biden has to submit a list of people who will be sanctioned for their actions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Sanctions will prohibit the targets from traveling to the United States. The authority to impose these sanctions will expire at the beginning of 2024. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 : Authorized the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to “increase the presence and capabilities” of the United States Armed Forces in the region by building new infrastructure, “enhance the storage and pre-positioning in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region of equipment of the United States Forces”, and with military training and exercises with allies. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2019 : Amends the , which authorized the South China Sea Initiative providing military equipment and training to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, to change the name of the program to the “Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative” and expands the authorization to include the Indian Ocean in addition to the South China Sea and the countries of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Adds India to the list of countries allowed to be paid for expenses, along with Brunei, Singapore, and Taiwan. Extends the expiration date from September 30, 2020 to December 31, 2025. : Changes the name of the military build-up authorized in NDAA 2018 from the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to the “Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative”. Changes the activities authorized to include an increase in “rotational and forward presence” of the US Armed Forces and adds the prepositioning of “munitions” in addition to equipment. Expands the options for funding by removing the requirement that funding come “only” from a section 1001 transfer authority. Section 1001 transfer authority allows the shifting of up to $4.5 billion. Requires a 5 year plan be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense by March 1, 2019. Outline [Bill Text]( The "United States-backed international system" is being challenged by: China constructing islands in the South China Sea and challenging US economic interests North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities ISIS "Without strong leadership from the United States, the international system, fundamentally rooted in the rule of law, may wither, to the detriment of the United States, regional, and global interests." The United States policy for the region... "Promotes American prosperity and economic interests by advancing economic growth and development of a rules-based Indo-Pacific economic community" We will support... The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation East Asia Summit We want... Freedom of navigation under international law Expansions of security and defense cooperation with allies and partners Denuclearization of North Korea "To develop and grow the economy through private sector partnerships between the United States and Indo-Pacific partners" To pursue trade agreements and "build a network of partners in the Indo-Pacific committed to free markets" $1.5 billion per year from 2019 through 2023 ($7.5 billion total) The money can be used for... Foreign military financing Foreign military education and training Counterterrorism partnership programs "To encourage responsible natural resource management in partner countries, which is closely associated with economic growth" Military and Coast Guard training exercises Expanding cooperation with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka "Multilateral engagements" with Japan, Australia, and India Intelligence The goal is to counter "China's influence to undermine the international system" The goal of our commitment to ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is to "build a strong, stable politically cohesive, economically integrated, and socially responsible community of nations that has common rules, norms, procedures, and standards which are consistent with international law and the principles of a rules-based Indo-Pacific community." To enforce all existing commitments to Taiwan made by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the 3 joint communiques and the Six Assurances agreed to by President Reagan in July 1982 The United States "should" regularly transfer weapons to Taiwan "that are tailored to meet the existing and likely future threats from the People's Republic of China." By 2030, 66% of the global middle class will be living in Asia and 59% of middle class consumption will take place in Asia The United States has free trade agreements in effect with Australia, Singapore, and Korea The member states of ASEAN represent the fifth largest economy in the world Congress supports "full implementation of the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Agreement by Indo-Pacific countries" Authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for the President to produce a trade facilitation strategy that levels the playing field for American companies competing in the Indo-Pacific region. Authorizes $210 million per year from 2019 through 2025 (over $1 billion total) to "promote democracy, strengthen civil society... etc" in the Indo-Pacific region. This money can be used to promote democracy and the "rule of law" inside of China. Articles/Documents Article: , By David Sacks, Council on Foreign Relations, March 30, 2021 Article: , By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 29, 2021 Article: , By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 10, 2021 Article: , By Tass, March 2, 2021 Article: , By David Axe, Forbes, February 23, 2021 Article: , By Laura Davison and Jarrell Dillard, MSN, Bloomberg, February 21, 2021 Article: , By Chea Vanyuth, Khmer Times, February 2, 2021 Document: , By Karen M. Sutter, Andres B. Schwarzenberg, and Michael D. Sutherland, The Congressional Research Service, January 21, 2021 Article: , By Tim Stretton, POGO, January 21, 2021 Article: , By Fabrizio Casari, Alliance for Global Justice, January 14, 2021 Document: , By Susan V. Lawrence, The Congressional Research Service, January 4, 2021 News Release: , Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2020 Article: , By The Defense Spot, October 7, 2020 Article: , By Scott Cooper, Defense One, September 29, 2020 Article: , By Jan van der Made, Rfi, September 21, 2020 Article: , By CBS News, September 10, 2020 Document: , By Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, The Congressional Research Service, August 3, 2020 Article: , By Arshad R. Zargar, CBS News, June 16, 2020 Article: , By Snehesh Alex Philip, The Print, May 24, 2020 Article: , By Kyle Mizokami, Popular Mechanics, April 29, 2020 Article: , Vietnam News, March 15, 2020 Article: , Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service, Translated by Sovannarith Keo, Written in English by Joshua Lipes, Radio Free Asia, March, 2020 Press Release: , Anthony Gonzalez, November 13, 2019 Article: , By Jeremy Page, Gordon Lubold and Rob Taylor, The Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2019 Document: , By Thomas Lum, The Congressional Research Service, January 28, 2019 Document: , By Susan V. Lawrence and Wayne M. Morrison, The Congressional Research Service, October 30, 2017 Additional Resources , Britannica Lockheed Martin Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March 10, 2021 Transcript: 40:53 Antony Blinken: So on Nord Stream II, a couple of things at the outset, just to be very, very clear, President Biden thinks it's a bad idea. He said so repeatedly, I share his his view. It violates the European Union's own energy security principles. It jeopardizes the economic and strategic situation for Ukraine, for Poland as well. And so he opposes it. We oppose it will continue to do so. I've been on the job, I think, five weeks. The pipeline is 95% complete. It started construction started in 2018. So I wish we didn't find ourselves in a situation with a pipeline that's virtually complete. 1:06:17 Antony Blinken: We have to deal with the drivers of migration, to your point. And I think there is real opportunity there to do that. When President Biden was Vice President, as you may remember, he led an effort, very successful effort, a bipartisan effort with Congress to secure significantly more resources to help Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador deal with some of these drivers, whether it came to security, whether it came to corruption, whether it came to economic opportunity, and we did this in a way that was simply not simply throwing money at the problem, but demanding concrete reforms from these countries, that actually materially improved the situation for people there and took away some of the incentives for them to come to the United States. We now have a proposal with additional resources over four years to do that, and to do that in a, I think, potentially effective way. 1:10:35 Antony Blinken: First we have in President Biden, as you know, someone who believes strongly in NATO, in the Alliance, the most successful alliance in history and something as he see that he sees as the glue that joins us to to Europe and so this is something as you know, he spent a lot of time on himself in the past and he's doing so now as well. 1:12:37 Antony Blinken: When we see democracy being challenged by China or by Russia, one of the things that they're trying to do constantly, is not just to divide us from other democracies, but of course, to divide us from ourselves, and in particular, to try to make the case that the system that we all believe in and are dedicating our lives to professionally doesn't work and that their systems are better. 1:13:09 Antony Blinken: Demonstrate together, that democracy actually delivers for our people and for other democracies. That is the single best answer and response to this effort by autocratic countries around the world to try to make the case that democracy doesn't deliver an autocracy does. So I hope we can work on that together because that's the path to success. 1:13:43 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): The International Criminal Court has taken actions leading to the unjustified prosecution of American Israeli nationals despite neither country being a member of the court. Most recently, the ICC issued a ruling that had jurisdiction to try Israelis for alleged war crimes in Palestine. I appreciate your statement opposing the recent moves by the ICC. What are the steps the State Department are taking to counter these recent actions? And how will you work to prevent ICC prosecutions of Americans or Israelis?Antony Blinken: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. We of course share the goal, the broad goal of accountability for international atrocity crimes. That's not the issue. In the case that you raise, as well as the attempt to assert jurisdiction over American troops in Afghanistan, we have strongly opposed those assertions of jurisdiction. It's been our view, it remains our view that jurisdiction is reserved when a state consents to it or if there's a referral by the United Nations Security Council. Neither is true in the case of of Israel and the Palestinian matter that you just mentioned, or is it true in the case of Afghanistan, we have the capacity ourselves to provide accountability when those issues arise. And so we will continue to make clear our opposition, I think the question for us, and it's an appropriate one is how can we most effectively do that and that's something that we're looking at right now. 1:15:37 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): My youngest son served in Afghanistan. So identify as a family member of the threats of ICC what they could mean to the American people. 1:16:30 Antony Blinken: We applaud the steps that have been taken toward normalization with Israel by a number of countries including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco. These are very important and we want to build on them. 1:16:50 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): But unfortunately then we go to Nordstrom, too. And that is a Do you agree that Nord Stream II pipeline is a Russian malign influence project, if completed, that would threaten European and US security? Antony Blinken: Yes, I think as we've we were discussing a little bit earlier, we we oppose the president opposes Nordstrom, who has been clear about this for some time. So have I, and unfortunately, the pipeline is, you know, is 95% complete. But we are making clear that we, we stand against its completion. We issued an initial report and sanctioned the the leading pipeline, ship, and we continue to review other possibilities for sanctions going forward.Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): And I appreciate you actually referenced the threat to Poland. What about threat is already on with the aggression in Ukraine.Antony Blinken: There are two and this is something that I worked on a lot when I was last in, in the Obama administration. We strongly stand against Russia's attempted annexation of Crimea, we stand strongly against its aggression in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine, and we are strongly in support of Ukraine, we intend to strengthen that support, whether its security, economic, or its efforts to strengthen its own democracy, which are vitally important because one of the challenges as you know, for Ukraine is it has to face aggression from the outside from from Russia, but it also has to deal on the inside with its own challenges, including the problem of corruption. We're determined to work on all of that.Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): Another alternative would be as Azerbaijan to Bulgaria, the Black Sea with pipelines that I urge you to make every effort on that. I yield back. 2:54:30 Antony Blinken: First when it comes to the the Houthis, just to be very clear, we we see them as a bad actor that has tried to overrun Yemen, interrupted a peace, effort and led by the United Nations, committed acts of aggression against Saudi Arabia, as well as atrocities of one kind or another, in Yemen itself, and of course, have helped create an environment where we have the worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now. And that's precisely why we took the action we did in terms of lifting the designation on the entity itself. We continue to have designations against individual who the leaders, including some that we've imposed recently, but we wanted to make sure that nothing that the United States was doing, made the provision of humanitarian assistance to Yemen even more difficult than it already is. And it was our judgment, that was those designations, that designation of the group was having that effect, but we stand strongly for the proposition that we have to deal with the Houthis and also try to advance current efforts to end the war. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 10, 2021 Speakers: Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Peter Biar Ajak, National Endowment for Democracy, all of Washington, D.C.; Wai Hnin Pwint Thon, Burma Campaign UK, Geneva, Switzerland Nathan Law, former Hong Kong Legislative Council Member, London, United Kingdom. Transcript: 35:54 Ambassador Paula J Dobriansky: Venezuela is a flashpoint for Chinese and Russian investment and malign influence. both nations have invested billions into Venezuela taking advantage of its economic and political weakness, its vast petroleum resources and their close relationships with a corrupt Maduro regime. Russian arms manufacturers sold $4 billion worth of weapons to Venezuela over the last 10 years, and China has invested some 67 billion in Venezuela since 2007. These instruments have propped up an illegitimate government and have undermined prospects for democracy. 37:07 Ambassador Paula J Dobriansky: Russia and China have expanded investments in Africa as well. In 2003, annual Chinese direct investment in Africa was just 75 million, but by 2009, it reached 2.7 billion. Through its One Belt One Road Initiative. China is offering fragile democracies in Africa, new rail lines, highways and other infrastructure projects. African nations are finding that these projects have left them with massive debt and a lack of control. Russia is also increasing its investments in Africa to especially its military presence. It's striving to create a Red Sea naval logistics facility in Sudan. 40:49 Madeleine Albright: And I do think that there's no question that China is our biggest problem, and that they are out there, hustling in every single way. And I have made very clear that with the Belt and Road policies that they are undertaking, the Chinese must be getting very fat because the belt keeps getting larger and larger. And some of it does have to do with the fact that we have been absent and they are filling a vacuum and so we need to make clear that we need to be back and really do need to make clear in so many ways that we are a leader in restoring and building democracy in other countries. 1:13:46 Sen. Chris Coons (DE): Senator Cornyn and I have a bipartisan bill about strengthening civics education within the United States. In recent surveys, there's as many young Americans who support and believe in socialism as believe in capitalism. There's profound doubts about democracy, particularly after the events of January 6th, and the disinformation, about the value and legitimacy of free and open societies that we've lived through. It's my hope that on a bipartisan basis, we can move a renewed investment in civics education to strengthen our own democracies, you've both spoken to. 1:48:30 Peter Biar Ajak: The United States need to send a clear message to here, there is repression of our people will no longer be tolerated, nor any further delay of elections. We should sanction perpetrators of gross human rights violations like which, while urging the African Union to urgently set up the hybrid court on South Sudan to end impunity. If Kiran doesn't hold the election on time, he's already illegitimate regime will have expired since he was never elected by our people. This will necessitate a new political paradigm to ensure a successful transition to democracy. Despite severe depression, our people made it clear in the recently concluded national dialogue that Kiran Machar must exit the political scene. I hope the United States, this committee will stand with our people. Hearing: , House Committee on Armed Services, March 10, 2021 Speakers: David F. Helvey, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs, Department of Defense Admiral Philip S. Davidson, U.S. Navy, Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command General Robert B. Abrams, U.S. Army, Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces Korea Transcript: 31:54 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: The threat as it's developed in the western Pacific has moved in a way in which we need to have better integrated air and missile defense capability on Guam in order to defend it. What you have in place right now is fad radar, which only has 120 degree wide look at threats in the region and in fact, it's oriented on North Korea. And it's meant to defend against rogue shot of intermediate range from North Korea. We supplement that with an Aegis destroyer. As we look at the expanse of Chinese weapon systems, and their employment of air and maritime forces in the region. We need a 360 degree defense now of Guam, and must be able to meet the ballistic missile threat that can come from PRC land as well as PRC ships. But it also should meet the 360 degree threat around Guam that comes from circumnavigations of Guam by PRC naval assets, including submarines that could shoot land attack cruise missiles, for example. As well as bomber approaches, and its ability to shoot land attack cruise missiles as well. We have to be able to defend against all those threats. Aegis Ashore is a proven technology that you have today at sea and you have it ashore in Romania and Poland to help in the defense of Europe. That system would enable all the capabilities that you have today and begin to meet the threats in the future. As China develops hypersonic weapons during the course of this decade., clearly there's going to be a need to have space sensing associated with that. You're still gonna have to have an interceptor to meet the threat. In my view, that's going to rectify that by bridging Aegis Ashore with our space capability that is to come. 49:14 David F. Helvey: And the reality is that we're not asking nations to choose between the United States or China. In fact, we welcome and encourage all nations across the Indo Pacific to maintain peaceful, productive relations with all of their neighbors, China included. Framing the strategic competition that we find ourselves in with China, as a choice between us or China, or as a choice between nations is really a false choice. The choice that our allies and our partners and everyone in the region faces is between supporting the existing international order, the existing system that's free and open. It's the system that we helped to create that we've supported, and that we believe has benefited everybody in the region, including in particular, including China. And the alternative now that China is presenting, which is a closed system in a more authoritarian governance model. So it's a competition between systems, that's a choice between systems. Do you want to choose a free and open system? Or do you want to choose a closed and authoritarian one? And so we're only asking countries to do their part to uphold the international laws, rules and norms, which support their interests, which they've benefited from, and helped to provide for security and prosperity for all of us. And so that's that's the ask that we've got our allies and our partners. 57:27 Rep. Joe Courtney (CT): Admiral Davidson on page 35 of your testimony you set forth China's sort of brazen, repeated violations of the Law of the Sea treaty. And mentioned the fact that at South China Sea geographic features were renamed with, I guess, Chinese names. Can you flesh that out a little bit what that means in terms of, you know, maritime territorial claims, and the impact in terms of freedom of navigation? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Well, the Chinese are trying to basically impose Chinese national law on the international regime that provides for the freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas. We've spoken quite a bit about the Chinese use of lawfare. This is, one of the methodologies in which they do it. It's not just the naming, or renaming of features that have had long standing names in the region. It's the redefinition of what they might be. Because, rocks, is slits, islands all have very specific navigational rights associated with them, as well as their continued militarization of the features that they built out early in the last decade. Their continued militarization is to frankly, deter not only the United States, but truly cow, all of our allies and partners in the region, and certainly the South China Sea claimants from their absolute rights to operate and those rights that they enjoy for economic resource extraction of freedom of the seas, freedom of the airways, etc.Rep. Joe Courtney (CT): Well, thank you for that answer. Because, again, as you point out, this isn't just about sort of names. It's also about sort of territorial claims and what that means to the rules based system that has been so successful over the last 75 years. 1:29:46 Rep. Scott DesJarlais (IA): Admiral Davidson What do you consider the most likely potential target of Chinese aggression or military action in the next five to 10 years? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Given what they've said both publicly and over time, and certainly during the tenure of Chairman Xi Jinping. I would say Taiwan is the first. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Armed Services, March 9, 2021 Transcript: 4:23 Sen. Jack Reed (RI): At his confirmation hearing Secretary Austin accurately described china as the pacing threat for the department of defense under president Xi Jinping china has moved away from greater integration with the liberal world order and instead created a style of authoritarian capitalism that it now seeks to explore throughout the region and the world additionally China seeks to co op international institutions or create parallel organization to support its strategic interest. 8:23 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): China invested in military capabilities many americans naively assumed that China's entry into the WTO and the global integration of its economy would somehow make the Chinese communist party more friendly and open to the west. The result now is america's military advantage and the credibility of our deterrent is eroding that is why the 2021 NDAA was the toughest bill on china ever with several national security committees involved and that is specifically why this committee put the Pacific Deterrence Initiative or PDI into last year's NDAA to stop aggression from the Chinese Communist Party. 18:50 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: I think the Pacific deterrence initiative funded in FY21 for about $2.2 billion was a good first start. I recognize that the committee has put a cap of $5.5 billion on the fund going forward. 22:45 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: i'm quite encouraged by the potential power of an organization like the quad my brain in my view India Japan Australia in the United States that's a diamond of democracies that could bring so much more not only to the region but to the globe not not in terms of security alone, but in terms of how we might approach you know the global economy, critical technologies like telecommunications and 5G, collaboration on the international order, just much to be done diplomatically and economically and I have great hope that our ministerial level meetings with the clot as it's known and returned we'll build into something much bigger for the sake of the globe. 24:24 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): With regard to the projected 2025. It shows that at that point, China will have three aircraft carriers to our one in the region. Is that correct? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Yes, sir. Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And then with regard to amphibious assault ships, it's projected in 2025, that we'll have six to our two. Admiral Philip S. Davidson:* Yes, sir. **Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And then with regard to modern multi warfare, combatant ships 50 for two hours, six, is that correct? Admiral Philip S. Davidson:* Yes, sir. **Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And what is the significance of that last figure Admiral? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Really, the three charts work together, Senator, one to show the change in capability and capacity that the Chinese have undertaken during the course of the 21st century. And the relatively static nature of our own forward positioned forces. As I described, our effort to do a deterrence to sustain a deterrence posture and the reason it's so important on our ability to respond in time and without question, you know, is this an old novel in the 70s is to say, the importance of us presence forward is incredibly important, perfect speed is being there. And it's to show that if we don't make changes in our posture forward, that that it will demonstrate that the Chinese have much greater capacity than we have. 26:42 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: But the important factor here is time. It takes almost three weeks to respond from the west coast of the United States and 17 days to respond from Alaska to get all the way to the first island chain and to conduct operations within the second islands. 28:26 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Certainly advocating for Aegis Ashore and Guam the mission partner environment as well as the Pentek. That the Pacific Range Improvements that I seek for our structure in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and so forth. 35:43 Sen. Deb Fisher (NE): Last year, the strategic forces subcommittee authorized and additional $77 million to begin fielding a persistent air and missile defense system on Guam. Unfortunately, this funding was removed in conference and replaced with language requiring the department to study the issue. Can you walk us through the need for this system? 38:24 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: In partnership with the Missile Defense Agency we believe that the aegis assures system as is being put to sea right now and has been constructed previously in Romania and Poland delivers the kind of capabilities that would meet the threat that's excellent here by mid decade and we'll help us pace the threat into the future. 1:03:35 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: I worry that they're accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules based international order which they've long said that they want to do that by 2050, I'm worried about them moving that target closer. Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then and i think the threat is manifest during this decade in fact in the next six years. 1:05:58 Sen. Maizie Hirono (HI): I noticed that you significantly increased the requested amount from last year's PDI report to this year's report to strengthen our allies and partners over the next five years in the region from over $300 million to about $2.8 billion, can you discuss your rationale for the significant increase and what that additional funding is intended to do or where will it go?Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Well you hope you highlighted the key aspects ma'am it's to enhance and make improvements in our joint exercise program and that's principally because not only the united states but our key allies and partners Japan, Korea, Australia is just three examples are buying important capabilities that match ours integrated air missile defense for example fifth generation fighters like the F35 they're being actually delivered in the theater we've got to advance our exercise capabilities or excuse me our exercise program in a way that allows us to exercise those capabilities deliberately. 1:34:07 Sen. Tim Scott (SC): My first question is about Taiwan. I think you agree that it we've got to prevent Communist China from Controlling taiwan is a strategic necessity for the united states and the loss would devastate our ability and and the ability of japan to counter china's aggression does you agree with that and rightAdmiral Philip S. Davidson: As a combatant commander out there in the Indo-Pacific I have an obligation to you know support the Taiwan Relations Act and and in a geostrategic sense i think it's critically important to the united states global status, yes. 1:44:04 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: The Aegis Ashore is a system that's in fact already been developed we we have built and are employing one actually already in Romania and there's one building and imminently operational in Poland as well and it's to help nato with the defense of Europe it is essentially a radar the command and control the information technology communications conductivity and the interceptors missiles that are capable of defeating ballistic missile cruise missile threats in and around today you know an aegis ashore system on Guam fixed site on Guam would enable 360 degree defense of Guam from any military attacks from china whether they come by sea by air or by ballistic missile in the future it is technology that is available today we've built it ashore we've built it at sea and it's our you know it's our number one priority for funding in Guam. 2:13:13 Sen. Mark Kelly (NJ): You know a couple of questions here about command and control, communications. And we rely heavily on satellites to do that. And in in January of 2007, China conducted an anti anti satellite test against one of their own non operational weather satellites, with a kinetic Kill vehicle. And it's been reported that in the year since China has an operational capability that can attack satellites in low Earth orbit and that they're developing the capability that goes all the way out to geosynchronous orbit. So how does this affect the strategic balance of power in the region from your perspective?Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Thanks for that, Senator. Yes, both China and Russia have demonstrated capability to disrupt satellites, testing capabilities on their own assets in the past, as you've articulated, it clearly, I think demonstrates that space which we've long considered a domain and which would be unthreatened for the United States. The potential is there actually, for it to be threatened. We have to build resiliency into our space apparatus that happens with other space assets. It happens with creating airborne and other terrestrial alternatives to fulfill that. And it changes the calculus in space as well. We have to recognize that again, this goes back to some earlier comments I made about to turn theory we were not going to be able to play defense alone, in this particular regard. If we can't demonstrate to others, that their capabilities and space might be at risk, then, you know, we run the risk of a deterrence failure. That's that the space layer is critically important to how we sense in the strategic nuclear deterrent, how we communicate across the Joint Force, and even how we sense and distribute information to the conventional forces as well. Its resiliency is incredibly important to us. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Armed Services, March 2, 2021 Speakers: Thomas Wright, The Brookings Institution Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, USA (Ret.), former United States National Security Advisor, Stanford University Hoover Institution, both of Washington, D.C. Transcript: Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster: The most significant flashpoint now that that could lead to a large scale war is Taiwan. And I think that has to do with really Xi Jinping's belief that he has a fleeting window of opportunity that's closing. And he wants to his view, make China whole again, you see this with the extension of the party's repressive arm into Hong Kong. And this horrible genocidal campaign in Shinjang, Taiwan is the next big prize. And so I think what we have to be able to do is have four position capable forces. Because what Xi Jinping wants to do with what would be the largest land grabs, so to speak in history, if he succeeds in the South China Sea, is to weaponize the South China Sea and just make it too difficult for us to be able to employ forces inside of that inner island chain. So you know, if you have four position forces there, that automatically transforms denied space with China with the PLA, The People's Liberation Army when it comes to deny space. Twitter Update: , Anya Parampil February 3, 2021 Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, January 19, 2021 Transcript: 24:50 Sen. Jim Risch (OH): After our conversations earlier today and after hearing our opening statements, Senator Menendez's input net regard, as you can see here and a whole lot of daylight between us on most of these issues, certainly, almost none whatsoever when it comes to objectives, strategy and how to get there. 34:06 Antony Blinken: Both the President Elect and I believe that we have to restore Congress's traditional role as a partner in our foreign policy making, in recent years, across administration's of both parties, Congress's voice and foreign policy has been diluted and diminished. That doesn't make the executive branch stronger. It makes our country weaker. President Elect Biden believes and I share his conviction that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. You are the representatives of the American people. You provide that advice and consent. 39:20 Antony Blinken: First President Elect Biden is committed to the proposition that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. And we share I know that goal across this committee. An Iran with a nuclear weapon, or on the threshold of having one with the capacity to build one on short order would be in Iran that is even more dangerous than it already is, when it comes to all of the other malicious activities that's engaged in, whether it is support for terrorism, whether it is fueling and feeding it's proxies, whether it is destabilizing the region. An Iran with a nuclear weapon, or with a threshold capacity to build one is in Iran that would act potentially with even greater impunity than it already is. So I think we have an urgent responsibility to do whatever we can to prevent Iran from acquiring or getting a weapon or getting close to the capacity to having the fissile material to break out on short notice. In my judgment, the JCPOA, for whatever its limitations, was succeeding on its own terms in blocking Iran's pathways to producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon on short order. It also featured and a feature that continues the most intrusive inspections and monitoring regime in the history of arms control. The challenge we face now is that we pulled out of the agreement, Iran is now taking steps to undo the various constraints that were imposed on it by the agreement. And so it has increased his stockpile of low enriched uranium, it is now enriching at a higher level. It is deploying centrifuges in ways that were prohibited under the agreement. The result is based on public reporting. The breakout time, the time it would take Iran to produce enough fissile material for one weapon has gone from beyond a year as it was under the JCPOA to about three or four months based at least on public reporting. And that potentially brings us right back to the crisis point that we were reaching before the deal was negotiated. And so the President Elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance, we would too. But we would use that as a platform with our allies and partners who would once again be on the same side with us to seek a longer and stronger agreement. And also, as you and the chairman have rightly pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's destabilizing activities. That would be the objective. 53:46 Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): Okay, one of the things that Congress did unanimously is we approved $300 million of lethal defensive weaponry for Ukraine. The Obama administration never implemented, the Trump administration did. Do you still disagree with providing that lethal defensive weaponry or do you think and, over time now, that's been proven to be the correct decision by Congress and the Trump administration? Antony Blinken: Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine. In fact, I had the opportunity to write exactly that in the New York Times about three years ago. 1:14:09 Antony Blinken: There's been a strong and long bipartisan commitment to Taiwan. Taiwan Relations Act, also that communicates with China, and part of that commitment is making sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself against aggression. And that is a commitment that will absolutely endure. In a Biden administration, we will make sure that Taiwan has the ability to do that. I would also like to see Taiwan playing a greater role around the world, including in international organizations. When those organizations don't require the status of a country to be a member, they should become members. When it does, there are other ways that they can participate. 1:35:15 Sen. Marco Rubio (FL): Is it your view that our stance towards Venezuela should change in essence, that we should no longer recognize Juan Guido and an intern in negotiations with Maduro? Antony Blinken: No, it does not. I very much agree with you, Senator, first of all, with regard to a number of the steps that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guido, recognizing the National Assembly as the only democratically elected institution in Venezuela, seeking to increase pressure on the regime, led by a brutal dictator in Maduro. 1:46:21 Antony Blinken: First senator, we need to be clear eyed about the Houthis. They overthrew a government in Yemen. They engaged in a path of aggression through the country. They directed aggression toward Saudi Arabia, they've committed atrocities and human rights abuses. And that is a fact. What's also a fact though is that the the Saudi led campaign in Yemen, pushback against the Houthi aggression, has contributed to what is by most accounts, the worst humanitarian situation that we face, anywhere in the world. And one aspect of that situation is that about 80% of the Yemeni population right now is in areas controlled by the Houthis. And whether we like it or not, we have to find ways to get assistance to them, if we're going to do anything about addressing this situation. And so my concern, deep concern about the the designation that was made is that, at least on its surface, it seems to achieve nothing particularly practical in advancing the efforts against the Houthis. And to bring them back to the negotiating table, while making it even more difficult than it already is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who desperately need it. So I think we would propose to review that immediately, to make sure that what we are doing is not impeding the provision of humanitarian assistance, even under these difficult circumstances, I recognize that some have talked about carve outs for American providers of humanitarian assistance. The problem there is that if the carve outs don't apply to everyone around the world, it's not going to get the job done, because most of the humanitarian assistance provided to Yemen is not coming from the United States. It's coming from other countries. So I think we've got a very specific and concrete problem that we need to address very quickly, if we're going to make sure we're doing everything we can to alleviate the suffering of people in Yemen. 2:09:10 Antony Blinken: President Elect has made clear that we will end our support for the military campaign led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. 2:46:30 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): You've advocated for expanding NATO, do you still support putting Georgia in NATO? Antony Blinken: If a country like Georgia is able to meet the requirements of membership, and if it could contribute to our collective security? Yes, the door should remain open. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): So if you're successful, then we'd be at war with Russia. Now, Antony Blinken: I actually think just the opposite. I think that, Senator with regard to NATO membership, there's a very good reason that Russia has proved aggressive against countries that are not actually in NATO, and under the umbrella and it is reason why I chose not to attack Sen. Rand Paul (KY): This would be adding Georgia that's occupied to NATO, under Article five, then we would go to war. Antony Blinken: Well, I think we've seen again, in the past that countries that have joined NATO have not been the same target of Russia, that we've seen. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): We were talking about 20 years ago, we might have a valid argument now Russia occupies Georgia Russia occupies, or proxy troops occupy part of Ukraine. So I think adding either of them to NATO Not only is provocative, but you'd have to, you'd have to think what comes next. I mean, if we're obligated to defend our NATO allies, I mean, basically would be voting for war. 3:42:48 Sen. Cory Booker (NJ): I think we see what's beginning to look like a civil war in Ethiopia. I think the the grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam conflict is growing and could potentially boil over the Sudan and Ethiopia have growing attention and growing conflicts. As you know, the Horn of Africa is of extraordinary importance. We have seen humanitarian disasters there before, of staggering human toil. We also have one of the more important shipping lanes where about 10% of all global cargo goes by, you use the words with him that you want to have diplomatic active engagement, what does that mean? Antony Blinken: Well, in the first instance, it means actually showing up at the at the right levels to use what diplomatic weight we have, with the government, with leadership in, in Ethiopia in the first instance. And there are a number of things that I think at the very least, would need to be done on short order. 3:53:11 Antony Blinken: First of all, President Elect strongly agrees with you that Nord Stream two is a bad idea and he's been very clear about that. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD229: Target Belarus

15 mars 2021 | 97 min

We are in the process of regime changing Belarus. In this episode, I prove it. Executive Producer: Nich Secord Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Targets of the Free Marketeers Impeachment: The Evidence A Coup for Capitalism Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress The World Trade Organization: COOL? Ukraine Aid Bill What Do We Want In Ukraine? Bills Omnibus 2021 Outline DIVISION FF - OTHER MATTERS TITLE III - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROVISIONS Belarus Democracy, Human Rights, and Sovereignty Act of 2020 "Alyaksandr Lukashenka has ruled Belarus as an undemocratic dictatorship since the first presidential election in Belarus in 1994." "Subsequent presidential election in Belarus have been neither free nor fair..." In response to the 2006 presidential election, "Congress passed the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006" 2006: President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13405 which authorized sanctions 2011: Senate Resolution 105 condemned the December 2010 elections in Belarus as illegitimate Repeatedly says, "The Government of Belarus, led illegally by Alyaksandr Lukashenka..." Accuses the government of conducting flawed elections, retribution against protestors, the suppression of the media, "a systematic campaign of harassment, repression, and closure of nongovernmental organizations", and pursuit of policies that make Belarus "subservient" to Russia by integrating into a "so called 'Union State' that is under the control of Russia". Accuses the government of arresting journalists, activists, and "3 leading presidential candidates" ahead of the August 2020 election. Accuses the government of conducting a fraudulent election on August 9, 2020, which reelected Alyaksandr Lukashenka and says the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada refuse to recognize Alyaksandr Lukashenka as the legitimate President of Belarus. The opposition candidate, Sviatlana Tsikhaouskaya fled to Lithuania in the days following the election, and from Lithuania, she "announced the formation of a Coordination Council to oversee... a peaceful transition of power..." The government of Belarus is accused of arresting journalists, including six who report for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Alyaksandr Lukashenka has requested security assistance from Russia, which Russia has promised to provide "To continue rejecting the invalid results of the fraudulent August 9, 2020 presidential election in Belarus..." "To continue supporting calls for new presidential and parliamentary elections..." "To refuse to recognize Alyaksandr Lukashenka as the legitimately elected leader of Belarus" "To not recognize any incorporation of Belarus into a 'Union State' with Russia..." "To continue calling for the fulfillment by the Government of Belarus of Belarus's freely undertaken obligations as an OSCE () participating state and as a signatory of the Charter of the United Nations" "To recognize the Coordination Council as a legitimate institution to participate in a dialogue on a peaceful transition of power." "To impose targeted sanctions, in coordination with the European Union and other international partners..." Authorizes "Belarusian groups outside of Belarus" to receive assistance Authorizes assistance to be used for "enhancing the development of the private section, particularly the information technology sector, and its role in the economy of Belarus, including by increasing the capacity of private sector actors..." Authorizes "" for fiscal years 2021 and 2022. Gives the Biden administration's State Department 120 days to submit a strategy, with a cost estimate, for expanding radio, television, live stream, and social network broadcasting and communications in Belarus to provide news and information, to develop and deploy circumvention technologies to allow people in Belarus to communicate on the internet without interference from the government of Belarus, to monitor the cooperation between Belarus and other countries in regards to internet monitoring or censorship capabilities, and "build the capacity of civil society, media, and other nongovernmental organizations and organizations to identify, track, and counter disinformation." Part of this report can be classified Allows sanctions to be applied to "a member of any branch of the security or law enforcement services of Belarus...", or is "an official in the so-called 'Union State' between Russia and Belarus (regardless of nationality of the individual) and their family members. Articles/Documents Article: , By Emily Graffeo, Business Insider, March 9, 2021 Article: , By Candela FERNANDEZ GIL-DELGADO, Legal Researcher at Finabel – European Army Interoperability Centre, March 4, 2021 Article: , By Paul Antonopoulos, Aletho News, February 18, 2021 Press Release: , The White House, February 13, 2021 Article: , By Mark Episkopos, The National Interest, January 15, 2021 Article: , By Gregory Feifer, Slate, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jamie Fly, The Washington Post, December 24, 2020 Article: , BelarusFeed, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, The Washington Post, December 4, 2020 Statement: , Joe Biden, October 27, 2020 Statement: , By Martin Young, CryptoPotato, October 14, 2020 Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Treasury, October 2, 2020 Press Release: , U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, October 1, 2020 Article: , By Tony Wesolowsky, RadioFreeEurope, RadioLiberty, August 25, 2020 Document: , By Cory Welt, Congressional Research Service, August 24, 2020 Article: , Robbie Gramer and Amy Mackinnon, Foreign Policy, August 12, 2020 Document: , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, February 2020 Article: , By Sergey Rekeda, moderndiplomacy, December 20, 2019 Article: , By Alex Kremer, World Bank Blogs, June 26, 2019 Article: , By Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton, National Security Archive, October 4, 2018 Document: , By Steven Woehrel, Specialist in European Affairs, Congressional Research Service, February 12, 2013 Statement: , George W. Bush, Office of the Press Secretary, October 20, 2004 Document: , By Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Congressional Research Service, May 5, 1999 Article: , BBC, August 19, 1991 Books , Naomi Klein, September 2007 Additional Resources , U.S. European Command Public Affairs Office Leadership History: Atlantic Council , International Republican Institute Profile: , LinkedIn Visual References Sound Clip Sources Meeting: , Atlantic Council, January 27, 2021 Authors Dr. Anders Åslund, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, Melinda Haring, deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, Ambassador John Herbst, director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, and Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, join to present their key findings and ideas for the Biden administration. They are joined by Valery Kovaleuski, an adviser to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, to discuss the report. The event will be moderated by Eurasia Center Nonresident Fellow and Tsikhanouskaya adviser Hanna Liubakova. Speakers: Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center Eurasia Foundation Freedom House National Democratic Institute Council on Foreign Relations Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council 2003-2006: US Ambassador to Ukraine 2000-2003: US Ambassador to Uzbekistan - played a critical role in the establishment of an American base to help conduct Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan Former Principal Deputy to the Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States Senior fellow at the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition Former Director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Valery Kovaleuski Adviser to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya Transcript: 9:40 Melinda Haring: The problem, though, is that there's all kinds of limitations on moving money into Belarun. It's A, it's a security state, B, we have COVID. And people can't move in and out of the country very easily. So this has to be handled sensitively. The folks that I'm talking to say that cryptocurrencies are the way to do it, but there's a bigger problem. The US government is not very good at moving money. They are tied up in all kinds of reporting requirements. The European Union has the same issues. But we need to be more creative. If we don't think with some new creative energy. This protest movement is going to fizzle out. So it's time to go back to the drawing boards and talk to people who are good at moving money and make it happen now. 14:40 Dr. Anders Åslund: Lukashenko today has only reserves for about one month of imports normally said it should be for three months. And he has a$3 billion of cash he needs $6 billion more to carry, to cover this year. And traditionally there are two sources to get that. One is from the IMF and back is not available because the IMF is not prepared to deal with Lukashenko because he is normally cheating them. And they know that. And the other source is Russia. Putin declared when Lukashenko came to his knees to Putin in Sochi on the 14th of September, but he's ready to give one and a half billion dollars as loans. But, Lukashenko needs much more, and well to Putin hinted at it is that Russian private money can come in and buy the big companies, and the Belarusian economy is quite concentrated to a few big companies. So there are four big companies: two fertilizer plants and two oil refineries that account for two thirds of the Belarus's exports to the west. And then where do they get the raw material from? All the oil comes from Russia, and the gas for one of the fertilizer plants come from Russia. So the natural thing is that the Russian private businessmen by these Belarusian companies, we have seen it before. It has happened with gas assets in Belarus and half of one of the refineries is already bought by Russian companies. But where does the money come from? It comes from Russian state banks. So what Putin is essentially saying it is a couple of my most loyal oligarchs are allowed to get billions of dollars of Russian state bank financing in order to buy Belarusian companies cheaply, and that would completely tie up the Belarusian economy and this is what we have to avoid. 18:07 Valery Kovaleuski: Biden has expressed a lot of interest in the situation in Belarus, he showed himself as fairly well informed about the events in those. And he was very vocal in kind of demanding the action and kind of defining the policy of the United States government. At this stage, I think the most important than the sort of doses are waiting for very specific steps that will be tangible, and that will be impactful. And number one is fast reintroduction of economic sanctions. And you might know that the United States have has imposed the sanctions since long, but they were suspended when Russia invaded Ukraine and the United States and European Union decided to engage with those and normalize relations. And that was one of the steps that they made. They introduced the waiver to the sanctions and now they are in the the suspension state. The other one would be to continue not recognizing Lukashenka's legitimacy as he is not legitimate ruler of Belarus at the moment. Very important would be to start implementation of the those Democracy Human Rights and Sovereignty Act that was adopted just last year, and actually it was, it was adopted in a very kind of fast, fast pace in just three months since in introduction in the house. But the whole Act has as a kind of arsenal of tools and mechanisms to to influence the situation that was to influence, the behavior of Lukashenka. 21:46 John Herbst: The first is to promote the legitimacy of the opposition in Ms. Tsikhanouskaya and the delegitimization of Lukashenko. So, for example, our ambassador when she goes out, Julie Fisher, a wonderful diplomat, should not present credentials to Lukashenko, she should be spending most of our time in Vilnius near Ms. Tsikhanouskaya to wish to organize the US government to manage this crisis. So we should have a senior coordinator to manage sanctions against Lukashenko regime, and maybe against appropriate Russians, and also should have a senior official designated to manage assistance to the opposition and to the people of Belarus. And finally, this this combines both organization and resources, we should double the budget of RFP and RL. So we can get out our message to the people of Belarus. The third category is to increase specific support to the opposition. So for example, Melinda already mentioned the need to get resources to the opposition using cryptocurrency, we should also push to give legitimacy to the opposition. The fourth, the next element is to keep Russia out of the conflict. I mean, they're already in. We've seen what they've done by sending media experts, for example. But this this involves I say, a series of measures that have to be conducted simultaneously. One, we don't want to frighten Russians into thinking that Belarus is is now going to become part of the West. So we would encourage the opposition not to talk about NATO not to talk about the EU talk simply about the need for Belarus to choose its own president to work with the EU should be in dialogue with Moscow about the crisis in Belarus. But three, we should send a very clear signal to Moscow that if they intervene with their repressive opperatives, whether with their secret police, with their regular police with their military, to repress the people of Belarus, or to prop up Lukashenko or Lukashenko-like alternative, there will be serious sanctions against the Russian economy against Russian officials. 43:09 Melinda Haring: I think that Ukraine can definitely play a role here. And you know, there's a lot of Belarusians who are in Ukraine. One of the more interesting things I found in in my section of the report, I focused on the domestic picture, is where Belarusians have gone since August, so Belarusians have gone to give, they've got to Riga, they've got to Vilnius and they've gone to Warsaw. And they're creating massive civil society organizations that are helping people who had to leave quickly. And many of the people in Kiev are students so you can help students, you can, you can send a pizza, you can provide a house for them. You can do very basic things. 55:09 Dr. Anders Åslund: The aim of the sanctions is to put sufficient pressure on a bilateral so that Lukashenko has to go. This is a really a regime change group of sanctions. Meeting: , Atlantic Council, December 7, 2020 Speakers: Executive VP of the Atlantic Council 2007-2009: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council Former Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff at US Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq 2004-2006: Director for Central, Eastern, and Northern European Affairs at the National Security Council 2001-2004: Deputy Director in the Private Office of NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson - Played a lead role on the Alliance’s response to 9/11 and its operations in Afghanistan and the Western Balkans Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center Eurasia Foundation Freedom House National Democratic Institute Council on Foreign Relations Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya Transcript: 1:37 Damon Wilson: After her husband was jailed by Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka, while running for President, Svetlana stepped in. Running a historic campaign for change. Much of the world recognizes that she overwhelmingly won the August 9th election, but Tsikhanouskaya was forced to flee the country after the regime threatened her family. The people of Belarus have protested for months demanding that Lukashenka resign, they are the true source of legitimacy. Tsikhanouskaya and the coordination Council for the transition of power which she leads from Vilnius, Lithuania, is recognized by the European Union and many others as the true voice of the Belarusian people. 5:42 Melinda Haring: How can the people of Belarus change the dynamic on the ground and force out Lukashenka? 8:07 Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya: We are asking the west to act faster. In my opinion, Western countries should demand new and fair elections and release of all political prisoners. Belarus democracy Act would serve as timely and extremely helpful step from the head of the US government in support of their brave people. 19:57 Melinda Haring: Look, I wanted to tell our audience if they haven't had a chance to get a copy of The Washington Post. Ms. Tsikhanouskaya has a piece in it this weekend. It's called 'The people of Belarus are Still Marching, Help Us.' And she writes very passionately about the need to pass the Belarus Democracy, Human Rights and Sovereignty Act of 2020. There's two weeks left to pass this act before Congress is out. Ms. Tsikhanouskaya what's in it and why is it important? Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya: The proceeds the bipartisan support received in favor of this act. We hope that this draft bill becomes law as soon as possible, as it would inspire the US to act decisively and urgently to support Belarus. Belarusian peaceful protest is a turning point. People struggle, people suffer. People struggle everyday with great dedication, yet there is a need of support on behalf of the international community. And when the new democracy act becomes low, it would send a strong signal to the Belarusian regime and the rest of the world on non recognition of Lukashenka's legitimacy, call for new presidential elections and oversee standards and demand the release of all political prisoners. You know, in our opinion, the Act would allow prompt US assistance to the civil society, media and urgent actions such as counter internet blockages in Belarus. Meeting: , Atlantic Council, November 6, 2020 Speakers: Host: John Herbst Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council 2003-2006: US Ambassador to Ukraine 2000-2003: US Ambassador to Uzbekistan played a critical role in the establishment of an American base to help conduct Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan Former Principal Deputy to the Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States Dr. Katerina Bornukova, academic director of the BEROC Economic Research Center Professor Vladislav Inozemtsev Senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Dirk Schuebel Ambassador of the European Union to Belarus Dr. Anders Åslund Senior fellow at the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition Former Director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 5:58 Dirk Schuebel: The pro-democracy movement and Belarus now faces the difficult prospect of dislodging Mr. Lukashenko, the unrecognized President who refuses to leave office. 6:47 Dr. Katerina Bornukova: So, if we take a look at the recent economic growth, over the last 10 years, we will see stagnation, average growth rate was around 1.7% only, which is too low for a developing economy, which needs to catch up. And the reason for this is structural problems, lack of reforms and privatization. As a result, we have a very large state owned sector, which is inefficient and which has accumulated a lot of debt, and this debt was slowly transferred to the government. So, which means that, well, right now, over the years, Belarus has also accumulated public debt. And right now that that is up to 35% of GDP. It's not relatively large, but it's quite difficult to serve because the majority of this debt is nominated in foreign currencies and that means that the liquidity and currency is always a problem with Belarus, and it often turns to Russia to solve this problem. So right now 50% of the debt is held by Russia or Russia associated funds. 10:45 Professor Vladislav Inozemtsev: Even if the government in Belarus changes, Russia will not...it cannot decouple from better because there are a lot of links, which tightens the two countries. First of all, Belarus is a part of the so called union state with Russia existing from like 99. It's a part of the Eurasian Economic Union. And in this case, Russia can allow to lose Belarus. There is a huge difference between Belarus and Ukraine for example, in this case, because Ukraine never was a part of any Russian led organizations but Belarus is. 13:49 Professor Vladislav Inozemtsev: The difference between Ukraine for example and Belarus is that Belarusian economy is state owned, it is not controlled by the oligarchy groups as it is in Ukraine. So therefore, for participating in this privatization for getting this shares or stakes in Belarus enterprise, the Russian private companies should be allowed to do so. So, therefore, there were several moves from the Russian side from the Russian private companies in direction of somehow changing the situation and to being allowed to jump in. 24:40 Dr. Anders Åslund: More money must come. And as we have discussed, all of us, this essentially has to come from the private sector. Ideally, this would be an IMF program, but the IMF is not ready to go for any program way of Lukashenko. They haven't had anything since 2009. Because Lukashenko refuses to do the elementary thing, stop subsidies to state enterprises and deregulated certain prices. So this is out of question. Hearing: , U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, October 1, 2020 Transcript: 1:18:30 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you as well for bringing the Belarus Democracy Human Rights and Sovereignty Act of 2020. And thank you to Ranking Member McCall for his leadership on this Chairman Keating and Mr. Kissinger for their leadership as well. And Marcy Kaptur, who is also one of the co sponsors originals of this bill. 1:20:15 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): We are now approaching almost two months since the fraudulent poll. And the people of Belarus despite the brutal crackdown, are still organizing rallies of 100,000 people or more demanding that Lukashenko leave power, and lead Belarus to the people to whom it belongs. I would note to my colleagues that according to the UN Special Rapporteur, more than 10,000 peaceful protesters have been detained as of September 18. And they need our help. Recent reports indicate that the police are using now, today increasingly violent tactics against these peaceful demonstrators. We do have a window of opportunity, and we need to seize it with everything that we have. As my colleagues know, the leading opposition presidential candidate, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who won the election by most accounts. Of course, there's not access to the ballots, but it seems clear that she won the election formed the coordination Council. Svetlana is an incredibly brave woman. She ran a brilliant campaign. But today she has an exile in Lithuania, where she continues to rally the Belarusian people and the world. I want to thank Mr. Keating for putting together that WebEx a few weeks ago with her and some of the coordination leaders from the council. We all saw a new and a fresh, just how important it is that we stand behind her. And behind all of the people of Belarus who have aspirations for free and fair elections and for democracy. 1:21:50 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): This bill today updates the Belarus Democracy Acts of 2004, 2006, and 2011 that I authored, and renews the personal economic and visa sanctions on an expanded list of bad actors in the Belarusian government. And, this is new, Russian individuals complicit in the crackdown. It calls for new elections, it recognizes the coordination council as a legitimate institution to participate in a dialogue on a peaceful transition of power. 1:23:15 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): So I just want to thank my colleagues. It's a totally bipartisan bill. I want to thank Katie Earle for her work on the bill. I want to thank Jackie Ramos, Pierre Tosi, Patrick, the Doug Anderson, there are just many who have worked together fast, quickly and effectively, and members to put together this bipartisan legislation. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment, September 10, 2020 Witnesses: Douglas Rutzen President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law Professor at Georgetown University Law Center Advisory Board member of the United Nations Democracy Fund Therese Pearce Laanela Head of Electoral Processes at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Joanna Rohozinska Resident Program Director for Europe at the Beacon Project at the International Republican Institute Senior program officer for Europe at the National Endowment for Democracy at least as of 2019. She has worked there for about a decade Jamie Fly Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and Co-Director of the Alliance for Security Democracy Senior Advisor to WestExec Advisors Co-founded by incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken Former President and CEO of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2019 & 2020 Former counselor for foreign and national security affairs for Sen. Marco Rubio from 2013-2017 Former Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative from 2009-2013 Former member of GWB's National Security Council from 2008-2009 Former member of GWB's Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2008 Transcript: 53:30 Joanna Rohozinska: Lukashenko must be held responsible for his choices and actions. Word mating strategies with transatlantic allies should be priority and to call for dialogue, immediate release of political prisoners and support for the political opposition's demands for holding elections under international supervision and beginning negotiations on a Lukashenko transition. 53:56 Joanna Rohozinska: Support for democracy requires patience as well as long term commitment and vision. This has been made possible with the support of Congress to IRI and the family. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 1:03:05 Therese Pearce Laanela: Institutions that are as strong...What we are seeing... those that are able to safeguard and against disinformation for example, they are working in innovative ways because this isn't a challenge that existed really as much before social media and one of the things that we're seeing is a kind of interagency cooperation, a partnership between private and public. That's really hasn't been seen before. Let me just take Australia as a case, but the working together with social media companies and government agencies and security agencies and election officials for rapid reaction to anything that comes in and that kind of seamless communication between agencies, that is one of the ways in which we can protect. 1:04:15 Jamie Fly: We have tools. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty has a Bella Russian language service Radio Svoboda which has significant of followers inside Belarus. The problem is that Lukashenko like many other authoritarians have realized that when they face significant pressure, they should take the country offline. And Belarusian authorities have done that on a regular basis, which makes it much more difficult to communicate and allow information to spread freely. So what they really need outlets like Svoboda and other independent media are access to internet circumvention tools, which are also funded by the State Department and the US Agency for Global Media. 1:09:57 Douglas Rutzen: China is providing surveillance technology to countries including Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Serbia. They also provided a $2 billion dollar loan to Hungry to construct a railway which Hungry then classified as a state secret in terms of the construction. 1:19:28 Brian Fitzpatrick: In 2013, in 2000, and he saw large scale protests in Ukraine, following what many believed to be a falsification of elections by their federal officials. So my first question for the entire panel, do you believe that Belarus protests could lead to a revolution similar to the one we saw in Ukraine and secondarily, on Tuesday, President Lukashenko, refused to rule out the idea of holding new elections, and acknowledge that he may have overstayed his time at office, whether or not you see revolutions similar to Ukraine, do you think that these protests could lead to an actual change in leadership? Joanna Rohozinska: So I take it as a question to me. I mean, I think that things have been building up and I would say that with this similarity to Ukraine was that there was also a deep seated frustration with corruption. Here, it's less about corruption. But it's still meets, where you have the accountability and transparency aspect of it that I was mentioning in my testimony. And I think that the frustration with the lack of responsive government and being treated like animals, frankly, is what they say, is what finally boiled over, but there's been, there's been an uptick in protests in Belarus, if you watch these kinds of things over the past two years, over the parasite tax, for example, which was also was a special tax that was put on unemployment, and on to penalize people who are unemployed, is trying to target civic activists, but it ended up reaching far farther than that. So you can see things percolating below the surface for quite a long time. Now. You never know when it's going to blow. Here, I think that there was just the COVID, underlay everything and it mobilized such a broad swath of society, that the trigger event was finally the elections, which again, demonstrating a degree of hubris they decided not to put off right, they figured that holding the elections at the beginning of August was the best thing to do, because there is always a low torque turnout and all this, frankly, because people tend to go out to the countryside. So they simply miscalculated. They did not understand how the people were feeling. And here, you do have a similarity with Ukraine, I think. And in terms of in terms of the other questions to going forward? No, you have to appreciate that this is a country that's never experienced democracy ever. Which means that even the democratic opposition leaders basically know it from textbooks, they don't know what from firsthand practice. And, Lukashenko himself, ironically, has been supporting the notion of sovereignty and independence in the face of the Russian state for the past couple of years. And he only changed his tune a couple of weeks ago, when he started getting backed into a corner. And in terms of, you know, his promises and calling new elections, I would be wary. He does not have a particularly good track record of following through on promises. And so I would probably take that as a lesson learned and be extremely cautious. I personally think he's just buying time. Because he also said that he would consider holding the elections after introducing constitutional changes and the constitutional changes that he's proposing is to introduce term limits. So I mean, he's still looking at the succession. He understands that this is the end of his time in office. I don't know if he wants to do that right, exactly now, however, understanding that this would have been his last term anyways, you're probably preparing for an exit strategy. 1:23:00 Joanna Rohozinska: I would certainly invest in looking at quality early parliamentary elections as being much more significant. Because once you turn the house, once you turn the parliament and then at least you start building up a degree of political capital that can start carrying forward into into the governance. 1:52:37 Therese Pearce Laanela: Your people are excellent. I really want to say that I'm calling in from Sweden. I'm not American myself. But I have worked in this business for 28 years working in different countries in really tough situations. And some of the best experts out there are from organizations that are very close to those of you when you're normally working in Washington. So the United Nations as well based in New York, but also organizations like IFIS, NDI, our colleagues from IRI they are doing excellent work supported by USA ID. So and they've kind of got it figured out how to support institutions for the long term, so you can trust the people that you are supporting. Hearing: , Council on Foreign Relations, January 23, 2018 Speakers: Richard Haass - President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden , Department of State, February 6, 2014 , Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, February 6, 2014 Hearing: , Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, January 24, 1994 Witnesses: Brian Atwood Then: USAID Adminstrator Now: - Was the first president of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Stephen Cohen Then: Professor at Princeton with emphasis in Russian studies Married to Katrina Vanden Heuvel Criticized the Obama administration for starting the new Cold War Said in 2014 that Ukraine crisis was a result of US actions, starting with Clinton, aimed at expanding NATO up to Russia's border. Wrote about our role in the 2014 Ukraine coup Strobe Talbot Then: Deputy Secretary of State Former Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization President of the Brookings Institution for 15 years Member of CFR Transcript: 14:23 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): There is no greater United States national security objective today than to assist Russia make a peaceful transition to a stable democratic form of government, an open pluralistic society, a market economy. Such a transition offers the best prospect of a long term cooperative, peaceful relationship with the only other nuclear power capable of destroying the United States. 26:39 Strobe Talbot: Our approach from the beginning, our strategy has been to reinforce those trends in Russian political and economic life that together we believe, constitute the essence of the Great Transformation underway in that country. Those trends are democratization and privatization. They are in fact interlocking. They are mutually reinforcing. The more people work in private enterprise, the more they are likely to participate in the democratic process and the more they are likely to vote for candidates who will support economic as well as political freedom. 27:27 Strobe Talbot: Our bilateral foreign aid program is intended in its essence, to help prime the pump for the flow of much higher levels of support from two other sources from the international business community in the form of trade and investment, and from the international financial institutions in the form of loans to help Russia make the transition from a command to a market economy. 28:25 Strobe Talbot: President Yeltsin needs to have the confidence that if he continues to press forward on a strong economic reform program, Western support will be swift and substantial. But he and his colleagues in both the executive and the legislative branches of the Russian government must also understand something else. And that is the cause and effect relationship between internal reform and outside support. Our support will follow their reform. It cannot be the other way around. 29:30 Strobe Talbot: Privatization involves closing down inefficient state enterprises while the shift to market economics at least initially brings higher prices. The result is social pain, disruption and fear of the future. If they reach critical mass, those ingredients can explode into a political backlash against reform. 1:46:00 Strobe Talbot: The world has capital flows, potential for investment that can move into societies like Russia, where the population is highly educated. It's a tremendous human resource where there are natural resources that can be exploited for the good of Russia and for the entire world economy. 2:23:47 Strobe Talbot: Now we do not know what the future holds. We do not know what kind of Russia we will be sharing the planet with early in the 21st century. We do not know if it will have stayed on a reform path and have continued to move in the direction of integration. 2:53:10 Stephen Cohen: Now, to be fair, this unwise American policy toward Russia began under President Bush in the end of 1991, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, but for a full year now President Clinton has expanded that policy, made it worse and therefore now, it is his policy. 2:54:10 Stephen Cohen: The guiding principle of that policy since 1991 has been, and evidently based on the hearing today remains, an exceedingly missionary and highly interventionist idea that the United States can and should intervene in Russia's internal affairs in order to convert or transform that nation into an American style system at home, and a submissive junior partner of the United States abroad. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump

28 februari 2021 | 98 min

Donald Trump was acquitted of "Incitement of Insurrection" at the end of his second impeachment trial. Many seem to think this result was inevitable, but that wasn't the case. In this episode, by examining the evidence and how it was presented by the House Impeachment Managers, learn how the trial could have been structured to provide the possibility of a different outcome. Executive Producer: Scott Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes The 116th Lame Duck Impeachment: The Evidence Articles/Documents Article: , By Associated Press, US News, February 26, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, February 22, 2021 Article: , By Glenn Greenwald, February 16, 2021 Article: , By Weiyi Cai, The New York Times, February 13, 2021 Article: , By Katrina Neeper, WUSA, February 12, 2021 Article: , By Linda Qiu, The New York Times, February 12, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, February 11, 2021 Article: , By Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim, The New York Times, February 10, 2021 Article: , By Marisa Schultz, Fox News, February 9, 2021 Article: , By Adam Ciralsky, Vanity Fair, January 22, 2021 Article: , By Fiona Hill, Politico, January 11, 2021 Document: , U.S. House of Representatives 2021 Article: , By Reuters Staff, Reuters, November 23, 2020 Article: , By Robert Farley, FactCheck.org, November 20, 2020 , USLegal Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 9, 2021 Transcript: David Shoen: A review of the house record reveals that the speaker streamlined the impeachment process. House Resolution 24 to go straight to the floor for two hour debate and a vote without the ability for amendments. The house record reflects no committee hearing no witnesses, no presentation or cross examination of evidence, and no opportunity for the accused to respond or even have counsel present to object. House managers claim the need for impeachment was so urgent that they had to rush the proceedings, with no time to spare for a more thorough investigation, or really any investigation at all. But that claim is belied by what happened or didn't happen next. The House leadership unilaterally and by choice waited another 12 days to deliver the article to this Senate to begin the trial process. In other words, the House leadership spent more time holding the adopted article than it did on the whole process leading up to the adoption of the article. We say respectfully, that this intentional delay by Speaker Pelosi such that in the intervening period, President Trump became private citizen Mr. Trump constitutes a lapse or waiver of jurisdiction here for Mr. Trump no longer is the president described as subject to impeachment in Article One, Section three, clause six, and in Article two, Section four, and this body therefore has no jurisdiction as a function of that additional due process violation by Speaker Pelosi. Moreover, with all due respect, then President Trump suffered a tangible detriment from Speaker Pelosi has actions which violates not only his rights to due process of law, but also his expressed constitutional right to have the Chief Justice preside. The impeachment articles should be treated as a nullity and dismissed based on the total lack of due process in the house. David Shoen: For example, they contend, citing various law professors that quote any official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate's final conviction vote. This argument is a complete canard. The Constitution expressly provides in Article One, section three clause seven, that a convicted party following impeachment shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law after removal. Clearly, a former civil officer who's not impeached is subject to the same. We have a judicial process in this country we have exactly an investigative process in this country, to which no former office holder is immune. That's the process that should be running its course. Bruce Castor: I mean, let's let's understand why we are really here. We are really here, because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future. That's the real reason we're here. David Shoen: Presidents are impeachable because presidents are removable. Former presidents are not because they cannot be removed. The Constitution is clear, trial by the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment is reserved for the President of the United States, not a private citizen, or used to be President the United States. Just as clear, the judgment required upon conviction is removed from office and a former president can no longer be removed from office. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred, while the famed framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. It was the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the former Governor General of the British colony of Bengal, and a corrupt guy. The framers knew all about it, and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the Hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. And even though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left the office, two years before his impeachment trial began, not a single framer, not one raised a concern, when Virginia and George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Senators, Mr. President, to close, I want to say something personal about the stakes of this decision whether President Trump can stand trial and be held to account for inciting insurrection against us. This trial is personal Indeed, for every senator, for remember the house, every manager, all of our staff, the Capitol Police, the Washington DC, Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, maintenance and custodial crews, the print journalists and TV people who were here, and all of our families and friends. I hope this trial reminds America how personal democracy is. And how personal is the loss of democracy to distinguished members of the Senate. My youngest daughter Tabitha, was there with me on Wednesday, January 6. It was the day after we buried her brother, our son Tommy, the saddest day of our lives. Also, there was my son in law, Hank, who's married to our oldest daughter, Hannah, and I consider him a son too, even though he eloped with my daughter and didn't tell us what they were gonna do. But it was in the middle of COVID-19. But the reason they came with me that Wednesday, January sixth, was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. And I told them, I had to go back to work, because we were counting electoral votes. That day, on January 6, it was our constitutional duty. And I invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in America. And they said they heard that President Trump was calling on his followers to come to Washington to protest and they asked me directly, would it be safe? Would it be safe? And I told them, of course, it should be safe. This is the Capitol. Steny Hoyer, our majority leader had kindly offered me the use of his office on the House floor, because I was one of the managers that day and we were going through our grief. So Tabitha, and Hank were with me and Stephanie's office, as colleagues dropped by to console us about the loss of our middle child, Tommy, our beloved Tommy, Mr. Newsome, Mr. Cicilline, actually came to see me that day, dozens of members, lots of Republicans, lots of Democrats came to see me. And I felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony and I won't forget their tenderness. And through the tears, I was working on a speech for the floor, when we would all be together in joint session, and I wanted to focus on unity. When we met in the house, I quoted Abraham Lincoln's famous 1838 Lyceum speech, where he said that if division and destruction ever come to America, it won't come from abroad. It'll come from within, said Lincoln. And in that same speech, Lincoln passionately deplored mob violence. Right after the murder of Elijah Lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaper editor, and he did Lincoln deplored mob violence. And he deplored mob rule. And he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in America. That was the speech I gave that day, after the house, very graciously and warmly welcomed me back. And Tabitha and Hank came with me to the floor, and they watched it from the gallery. And when it was over, they went back to that office, Steny's office, off of the House floor. They didn't know that the house had been breached yet, and that an insurrection or riot, or a coup had come to Congress. And by the time we learned about it, about what was going on, it was too late. I couldn't get out there to be with them in that office. And all around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands their loved ones to say goodbye. Members of Congress in the house anyway, we're removing their congressional pins, so they wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence. Our new chaplain got up and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on. And then there was a sound I will never forget the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, to most haunting sound I ever heard and I will never forget it. My Chief of Staff truly taken was with Tabitha and Hank locked and barricaded in that office. The kids hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts, and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes, they thought they were gonna die. My son in law have never even been to the Capitol before. And when they were finally rescued over an hour later by Capitol officers, and we were together, I hugged them. And I apologized. And I told my daughter Tabitha, who's 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in Teach for America. Now, I told her how sorry I was. And I promised her that it would not be like this again. The next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol. Of all the terrible brutal things I saw and I heard on that day. And since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American flag pole. The flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage, people's eyes were gouged. Officer a heart attack. Officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future. This cannot be the future of America. We cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions, because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the Constitution of the United States. Much less can we create a new January exception in our precious beloved constitution that prior generations have died for and fought for, so the corrupt presidents have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they want to do. History does not support a January exception in any way. So why would we invent one for the future? Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): And there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment. We know this because Article One, Section Three gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments the Senate has the power, the sole power to try all impeachments all means all and they're no exceptions to the rule because the Senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments It most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The first point comes from English history, which matters because in Hamilton road, England provided the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. Every single impeachment of a government official that occurred during the framers lifetime concerned a former official. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): Let's start with the precedent with what has happened in this very chamber. I'd like to focus on just two cases. I'll go through them quickly. One of them is the nation's very first impeachment case, which actually was of a former official. In 1797, about a decade after our country had ratified our Constitution, there was a senator from Tennessee by the name of William blunt, who was caught conspiring with the British to try to sell Florida and Louisiana. Ultimately, President Adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to Congress. Four days later, the House of Representatives impeached him. A day after that, this body the United States Senate, expelled him from office. So he was very much a former official. Despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again, holding federal office. And so the senate proceeded with the trial with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, blood argue that the Senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled. But here's the interesting thing. He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. I mean, unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached, Senator Blunt, recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here's what he said. 'I certainly never shall contend that an officer may 1 commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office.' That's the point. And there was no doubt because the founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the Constitution. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): William Belknap I'm not going to go into all the details, but just in short in 1876, the House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. hours before the House committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme. Belknap literally rushed to the White House to resign tender his resignation to President Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct, and of course, to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future. Well, later that day, aware of the resignation, what did the house do? The House move forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his case reached the Senate, this body Belknap made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today. That you all lacked jurisdiction any power to try him because he's a former official. Now many senators. At that time when they heard that argument. Literally, they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today, they were outraged by that argument. outraged. You can read their comments in the record. They knew it was a dangerous, dangerous argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a president could betray their country, leave office and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. And that's why, in the end, the United States Senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. Rep. Joe Neguse (CO): And just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, if, if President Trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the American people high crimes and misdemeanors, and they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached. And if they are, whether the Senate can try the case, if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct, or the risk of disqualification from future office, and it's pretty simple, they just could just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the Senate trial or they could resign during the senate trial. It's not looking so well. That would effectively erase disqualification from the Constitution. It would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. Bruce Castor: The argument about the 14th amendment is absolutely ridiculous. The house managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the 14th amendment. And here's what the 14th Amendment says. no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States, or any other state, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial Officer of any state to support the Constitution, and shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may vote by two thirds of each house to remove such disability. Now, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that that's written for people who fought for the Confederacy, or previous military officers who were in the government and not the Confederacy. And it does take a constitutional scholar to require that they be convicted first. In a court with due process of law. So that question can never be right until those things have happened. Bruce Castor: If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense, and let's understand a high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, the words haven't changed that much over the time. After he's out of office, you go and arrest him. So there is no opportunity where the President of the United States can run rampant in January the end of his term and just go away scot free. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven't seen any activity in that direction. And not only that, the people who stormed this building and breached it. We're not accused of conspiring with the President. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 10, 2021 Transcript: Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He then contacted Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate, Mike Shirkey, and the Speaker of the Michigan House, Lee Chatfield to lobby them to overturn Michigan's results. Trump invited Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Shirkey to Washington to meet with him at the White House, where the President lobbied them further. Let's be clear, Donald Trump was calling officials, hosting them at the White House, urging them to defy the voters in their state and instead award votes to Trump. The officials held strong and so Trump moved on to a different state, my home state of Pennsylvania. I am certain my Senators, Casey and Senator Toomey remember what happened there in early December as he did in Michigan. He began calling election officials, including my former colleagues in the Pennsylvania legislature, Republicans, Majority Leader Kim Ward, and Speaker of the House, Brian Cutler. Majority Leader Ward said the president called her to, "declare there was a fraud in the voting," then on November 25, President Trump phoned into a Republican state senate policy hearing, trying to convince the Republican legislators, Senators and House members, there had been a fraud in the vote. He even had his lawyer hold a phone up to the microphone in that hearing room. So the committee could hear him. Here is what he said.Donald Trump: We can't let that happen. We can't let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot. And we won all of these swing states by a lot. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): This was a gathering. I've attended many I have to tell you, as a former state legislator, a lot of policy hearings, I have to say with some confidence that was likely the first time a President of the United States of America called into a state legislative policy hearing. And remember, here is the President saying he won Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania had been certified for that Biden had won by more than 80,000 votes. Less than a week after calling into that meeting, he invited multiple Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House, the same scheme he had used on the Michigan legislators. It didn't work with those public servants either. Think about it. The President of the United States was calling public officials from the White House, inviting them into the Oval Office, telling them to disenfranchise voters of their state, telling them to overturn the will of the American people. All so he could take the election for himself. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): And then in Georgia, a state Trump had counted on for victory, his conduct was perhaps the most egregious. On November 11, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed that he believed ballots were accurately counted for Biden. Trump went on a relentless attack. Here are just a few examples. In all Trump tweeted at Raffensperger 17 times in the coming week. Show us just a few calling him "a disaster, obstinate, not having a clue, being played for a fool" and being a "so-called Republican" all because Raffensperger was doing his job ensuring the integrity of our elections. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): In early December, Trump called Brian Kemp, the Governor of Georgia and pressured him to hold a special session of the state legislature to overturn the election results and to appoint electors who would vote for Trump. A few weeks later on December 23, Trump called the Chief Investigator for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, who was conducting an audit. An audit of the signature matching procedures for absentee ballots. Trump urged him, "find the fraud" and claimed the official would be a national hero if he did. Let's call this what it is. He was asking the official to say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn't any. The official refused and the investigation was completed. And on December 29, Raffensperger announced that the audit found, quote, no fraudulent absentee ballots with a 99% confidence level. On January 3rd, Trump tweeted about a call he had with Georgia election officials the day before. He said, "I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling or unable to answer questions such as the ballots under the table scan, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more. He has no clue." On January the fifth, The Washington Post released a recording of that call, which had occurred on January 2nd, remember, just four days before the attack on the Capitol. Here is what President Trump said: Donald Trump: It's more illegal for you than it is for them. Because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's it. You know, that's a criminal offense. And as you know, you can't let that happen. That's that's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyers. That's a big risk. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): Let's be clear. This is the President of the United States telling a secretary of state that if he does not find votes, he will face criminal penalties. And not just any number of votes. Donald Trump was asking the Secretary of State to somehow find the exact number of votes Donald Trump lost the state by. Remember, President Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes. In his own words, Trump said 'All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes.' He wanted the Secretary of State to somehow find the precise number plus one so that he could win. Here's what he said Donald Trump: Well, look, I want to do is this I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Rep. Madeleine Dean (PA): He says it right there. The President of the United States, telling a public official to manufacture the exact votes needed so he can win. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): But when Rosen took over, President Trump put the same pressure on him that he had done with state officials, members of Congress, US senators and his former Attorney General. President Trump reportedly summoned acting Attorney General Rosen to the oval office the next day, and pressured Rosen to appoint special counsels to keep investigating their election, including unfounded accusations of widespread voter fraud, and also to investigate Dominion, the voting machines firm. According to reports, Mr. Rosen refused. To maintain that he will make decisions based on the facts in the law and reminded President Trump what he had already been told by Attorney General bill Barr, that the department had already investigated and quote found no evidence of widespread fraud. But President Trump refused to follow the facts in the law. So the President turned to someone he knew would do his bidding. He turned to Jeffrey Clark, another Justice Department lawyer, who had allegedly expressed support for using the Department of Justice to investigate the election results. Shortly after acting Attorney General Rosen followed his duty and the law to refuse to reopen investigations. President Trump intended to replace Mr. Rosen with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college results. According to reports, White House Counsel Pat Cippollone advised President Trump, not to fire acting Attorney General Rosen. Department officials had also threatened to resign en mass if he had fired Rosen. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): Trump reportedly told almost anyone who called him to also call the Vice President. According to reports, when Mike Pence was in the Oval Office, President Trump would call people to try to get them to convince the Vice President to help him. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): You can either go down in history as a patriot, Mr. Trump told him, according to people briefed on the conversation or you can go down in history as a pussy. Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI): Pezzola has since been charged with eight federal crimes for his conduct related to January sixth. According to an FBI agents affidavit submitted to the court, the group that was with him during the sack of the capital confirm that they were out to murder 'anyone they got their hands on.' Here's what the FBI said. And I quote, 'other members of the group talked about things they had done that day. And they said that anyone they got their hands on, they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi,' and that, 'they would have killed Vice President Mike Pence. If given the chance.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Those around Donald Trump, as was later reported, were disgusted. His close aides, his advisors, those working for him former officials, even his family were begging him to do something. Kelly Anne Conway, the President's close advisor call to quote, add her name to the chorus of aides urging Donald Trump to take action. Ivanka Trump, the President's own daughter went to the Oval Office as soon as the writing escalated and was as confirmed by Senator Graham "trying to get Trump to speak out to tell everyone to leave." Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called Jared Kushner pleading with him to persuade Trump to issue a statement or to do something. And Kushner too, went down to the White House after that call. And it wasn't just the people at the White House. Members of Congress from both parties who were trapped here, calling the White House to ask for help. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): The President, as reported by sources, at the time was delighted to see watch the violence unfold on television. President Trump was reportedly and I quote 'borderline enthusiastic, because it meant the certification was being derailed.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senator Ben Sasse related conversation with senior White House officials that President Trump was "walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren't as excited as he was." Rep. David Cicilline (RI): He attempted to call Senator Tuberville, dialed Senator Lee by accident. Senator Lee describes it, he had just ended a prayer with his colleagues here in the Senate chamber and phone rang. It was Donald Trump. And now Senator Lee explains that the phone call goes something like this. Hey Tommy, Trump asks, and Senator Lee says this isn't Tommy and he hands the phone to Senator Tuberville. Certainly then confirm that he's stood by as Senator Tuberville and President Trump spoke on the phone. And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process. That's why he called. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): An aide to Mark Meadows, the President's Chief of Staff, urged his boss to go see the president saying, "they are going to kill people." Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): On January 6th, President Trump left everyone in this capital for dead. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 11, 2021 Transcript: Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Senators, simply put, this mob was trying to overthrow our government. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): According to charging documents, Riley Williams allegedly helped steal a laptop from Speaker Pelosi his office to, 'send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then plan to sell the device to SVR Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service.' While we can't be certain if or how many foreign spies infiltrated the crowd, or at least coordinated with those who did, we can be sure that any enemy who wanted access to our secrets would have wanted to be part of that mob inside these holes. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 12, 2021 Transcript: Michael Van Der Veen: According to publicly available reporting, it is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions, preplanned and premeditated an attack on the Capitol. One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa. Sadly, he was also among the first to be released. From the beginning, the President has been clear. The criminals who infiltrated the Capitol must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They should be in prison for as long as the law allows. The fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the President. You can't incite what was already going to happen. Michael Van Der Veen: Law enforcement officers at the scene conducted themselves heroically and courageously and our country owes them an eternal debt. But there must be a discussion of the decision by political leadership regarding force posture and security in advance of the event. Michael Van Der Veen: Consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. David Schoen: Speaker Pelosi herself on February 2nd, called for a 9-11 style commission to investigate the events of January 6th. Speaker Pelosi says that the Commission is needed to determine the causes of the events she says it herself. If an inquiry of that magnitude is needed to determine the causes of the riot, and it may very well be, then how can these same Democrats have the certainty needed to bring articles of impeachment and blame the riots on President Trump? They don't. David Schoen: As any trial lawyer will tell you reportedly is a euphemism for I have no real evidence. Michael Van Der Veen: Brandenburg versus Ohio is really the landmark case on the issue of incitement speech. After the case was mentioned yesterday, in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, another landmark, the court held that the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law. If such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action. The Brandenburg holding has been interpreted as having three basic prongs to determine if speech meets the definition of incitement. The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to a riot, unless, this: one, the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action. Two, the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action. And three, the imminent use of violence or lawless action is likely is the likely result of the speech. The house managers cannot get past the first prong of the Brandenburg test. They have not and cannot prove Mr. Trump explicitly or implicitly encouraged use of violence or lawless action period. Bruce Castor: Did the 45th President engage in incitement? They continue to say insurrection? Clearly, there was no insurrection. Insurrection is a term defined in the law and involves taking over a country, a shadow government, taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you're going to do when you finally take power. Clearly, this is not that. What our colleagues here across the aisle meant is incitement to violence. To riot. Bruce Castor: Several of my colleagues and the house managers got up and spoke about the proceeding in the House being like a Grand Jury proceeding. Well, I've been in Grand Jury proceedings. I have run grand juries, in Grand Jury proceedings you call witnesses. You hear evidence. You make transcripts. You take affidavits, you develop physical evidence. You hear reports from police officers, you hear forensic analysis from scientists. In fact, you invite the target of the grand jury to come in and testify if he or she pleases to be heard by the grand jury. Which one of those things happened in the house prior to the impeachment article? Bruce Castor: The House managers told you that the President demanded that the Georgia Secretary of State, "find just over 11,000 votes." The word find like so many others, the house managers highlighted is taken completely out of context. And the word "find" did not come out of thin air. Based on an analysis of publicly available voter data, that the ballot rejection rate in Georgia in 2016, was approximately 6.42%. And even though a tremendous amount of new first time mail in ballots were included in the 2020 count, the Georgia rejection rate in 2020, was a mere four tenths of 1%. A drop off from 6.42% to 0.04%. Bruce Castor: With that background, it is clear that President Trump's comments and the use of the word "find" were solely related to his concerns with the inexplicable dramatic drop in Georgia's ballot rejection rates. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): The problem was when the President went from his judicial combat, which was fine to intimidating and bullying, state election officials and state legislators. And then finally, as Representative Cheney said, summoning a mob, assembling a mob and then lighting the match for an insurrection against the union. When he crossed over from non violent means, no matter how ridiculous or absurd, that's fine, he's exercising his rights, to inciting violence. That's what this trial is about. Speaker: Exactly when did President Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol? What specific actions did he take to bring the writing to an end? And when did he take them? Please be as detailed as possible. Speaker: Exactly when did the President learn of the breach at the Capitol? And what steps did he take to address the violence? Please be as detailed as possible. Del. Stacey Plaskett: Mr. President, Senators, This attack was on live TV on all major networks in real time. The President as President has access to intelligence information, including reports from inside the Capitol. He knew the violence that was underway. He knew the severity of the threats. And most importantly, he knew the Capitol Police were overwhelmingly outnumbered in a fight for their lives against 1000s of insurgents with weapons. We know he knew that. We know that he did not send any individuals. We did not hear any tweets. We did not hear him tell those individuals stop. This is wrong. You must go back. We did not hear that. So what else do the president do? We are unclear. But we believe it was a dereliction of his duty. And that was because he was the one who had caused them to come to the Capitol. And they were doing what he asked them to do. So there was no need for him, to stop them from what they were engaged in. Michael Van Der Veen: This is an article of impeachment for incitement. This is not an article of impeachment for anything else. So one count, they could have charged anything they wanted. They chose to charge incitement. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Senators, Donald Trump spent months inciting his base to believe that their election was stolen. And that was the point. That was the thing that would get people so angry. Think about that. What it would take to get a large group of 1000s of Americans so angry to storm the Capitol. That was the purpose behind Donald Trump saying that the election had been rigged, and that the election had been stolen. And to be clear, when he says the election is stolen, what he's saying is that the victory and he even says one time the election victory is being stolen from them. Think about how significant that is to Americans. Again, you're right over 70 million, I think 74 million people voted for Donald Trump. And this wasn't a one off comment. It wasn't one time it was over and over and over and over and over again with a purpose. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): We let the people decide the elections, except President Trump. He directed all of that rage that he had incited to January 6. The last chance. Again, this was his last chance this was certifying the election results. He needed to whip up that mob. Amp them up enough to get out there and try to stop the election results. The certification of the election. Sen. Ron Johnson: House managers assert that the January 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable. If so, why did it appear that law enforcement at the Capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach? Why did the house Sergeant at Arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard stating that he was not comfortable with the optics? Michael Van Der Veen: Holy cow. That is a really good question. And had the House Managers done their investigation, maybe somebody would have an answer to that. But they didn't. They did zero investigation. They did nothing. They looked into nothing. They read newspaper articles, they talked to their friends who know a TV reporter or something or someone or another. But Jimmy Crickets, there is no due process in this proceeding at all. And that question highlights the problem. When you have no due process. You have no clear cut answers. Del. Stacey Plaskett: He put together the group that would do what he wanted. And that was to stop the certification of the election so that he could retain power to be President of the United States, in contravention of an American election. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): He intended, wanted to, and tried to overturn the election by any means necessary. He tried everything else that he could to do to win. He started inciting the crowd, issuing tweet after tweet, issuing commands to stop the count, stop the steal, worked up the crowd, sent a save the date. So it wasn't just one speech or one thing he was trying everything. He was pressuring elected officials, he was riling up his base telling him the election had been stolen from them, that it had been stolen from him. It was a combination of things that only Donald Trump could have done. Hearing: , U.S. Senate, February 13, 2021 Transcript: Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): But last night, Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler of Washington State issued a statement confirming that in the middle of the insurrection, when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the president to beg for help, President Trump responded and I quote, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Needless to say this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming the charges before you, as well as the President's willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as Commander in Chief of the United States, his state of mind, and his further incitement of the insurrection on January 6th, for that reason, and because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution that the Senate adopted to set the rules for the trial. We would like the opportunity to subpoena Congresswoman Herrera regarding her communications with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and to subpoena her contemporaneous notes that she made regarding what President Trump told Kevin McCarthy in the middle of the insurrection, we would be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less, just as soon as Congresswoman Herrera Butler is available, and to then proceed to the next phase of the trial, including the introduction of that testimony shortly thereafter, Congresswoman Butler further stated that she hopes other witnesses to this part of the story, other patriots as she put it, would come forward and if that happens, we would seek the opportunity to take their depositions via Zoom also for less than an hour, or to subpoena other relevant documents as well. Michael Van Der Veen: What you all need to know and the American people need to know is as of late yesterday afternoon, there was a stipulation going around that there weren't going to be any witnesses. But after what happened here in this chamber yesterday, the house managers realize they did not investigate this case before bringing the impeachment. They did not give the proper consideration and work they didn't put the work in, that was necessary to impeach the former president. But if they want to have witnesses, I'm going to need at least over 100 depositions, not just one, the real issue is incitement. They put into their case, over 100 witnesses, people who have been charged with crimes by the federal government. And each one of those they said that Mr. Trump was a co-conspirator with. That's not true. But I have the right to defend that. The only thing that I ask if you vote for witnesses, do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that I can have. I need to do a thorough investigation that they did not do. Michael Van Der Veen: We should close this case out today. Michael Van Der Veen: It's about the incitement. It's not about what happened afterwards. That's actually the irrelevant stuff. That's the irrelevant stuff. It's not the things that were said from the election to January 6th. It's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. It doesn't matter what happened after the insurgence into the Capitol Building, because that doesn't have to do with incitement. Incitement, it's a point in time, folks. It's a point in time when the words are spoken, and the words say, implicitly say, explicitly, say, commit acts of violence, or lawlessness. And we don't have that here. So for the house managers to say we need depositions about things that happened after it's just not true. Michael Van Der Veen: Nancy Pelosi's deposition needs to be taken comm Vice President Harris's deposition absolutely needs to be taken and not by zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom. We didn't do this hearing by Zoom. These depositions should be done in person in my office in Philadelphia. That's where they should be done. Bruce Castor: Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if the if representative Herrera Butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on February 12 2021. And the former President's Council is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): I will now read this statement. This is the statement Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Butler February 12 2021. In my January 12 statement in support of the Article of Impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he'd had with President Trump, while the January 6th attack was ongoing. Here the details. When McCarthy finally reached the President on January 6, and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot. The President initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when according to McCarthy, the President said, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.' Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the President knew. And when he knew it. There are certain things that we do not know about what the President did that day. Because the President, that is former President Trump has remained silent. But what he was doing during one of the bloodiest attacks on our capital since 1812. Despite a full and fair opportunity to come forward, he's refused to come and tell his story. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): There can be no doubt. At the moment we most needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, President Trump instead willfully betrayed us. He violated his oath. He left all of us in offices like Eugene Goodman, to our own devices against an attack he had incited and he alone could stop. Interviewer: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election to see Donald Trump: I have to see, oh, I'm not going to just say yes. And this election will be the most rigged election in history, this is going to be the greatest election disaster in history. And the only way they can take this election away from us, is if this is a rigged election, we're gonna win this election, which a rigged election, the only way we're gonna lose, do you commit to making sure that there's a nice little word for all of we want to have get rid of the ballots, and you'll have a very transfer will have a very peaceful, they won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation, it's the only way we're gonna that's the only way we're gonna lose is if there's mischief, mischief, and it'll have to be on a big scale. So be careful. But this will be one of the greatest fraudulent and most fraudulent elections ever. We're not going to let this election be taken away from us. That's the only way they're gonna win. This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually. And then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret. And this is a case where they're trying to steal an election. They're trying to rig an election. And we can't let that happen. You can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country. People are together, in holding up signs stop this deal. If we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election. We don't have a country anymore. We cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. We're gonna fight like hell, I'll tell you, right. If you don't fight to save your country with everything you have, you're not gonna have a country left. We will not bend we will not break we will not yield. We will never give in. We will never give up we will never back down. We will never ever surrender. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. We will never give up. We will never concede it doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's steps. And you use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with. We will stop the steel. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you from me and from the country. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore. Michael Van Der Veen: Because their case is so weak that house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. They allege that Mr. Trump incited the January 6th violence. They alleged that he abused power by attempting to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Raffensburger to undermine the results of the 2020 election and they allege that he gravely and endangered the democratic system by interfering with a peaceful transition of power. At least three things there. Under the Senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump is hereby acquitted the charge in said article. Sen. Mitch McConnell: Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were, and this is extremely important, still liable to be tried and punished and the ordinary tribunals of justice. Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. As an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did, while he's in office. Didn't get away with anything. Yet. Yet. Sen. Mitch McConnell: January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They use terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they'd been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth. Because he was angry he lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceded the riot or a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. The house accused the former president of "incitement." That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There's no question, none. That President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6, it is not just his endorsement of remarks, in which an associate urged "trial by combat." It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen. Some secret coup by our now president. Now I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke the electoral college vote. As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled, over. That just really opened a new chapter of even wilder, wilder and more unfounded claims. The leader the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feigned surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw that, that unhinge listeners might take literally. But that was different. That's different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. Whatever our ex president claims he thought might happen that day whatever right reaction he says he meant to produce by that afternoon. We know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily. Happily, as the chaos unfolded, pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners, beating cops and breaching parameters. Their president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president. Now predictably and foreseeably. Under the circumstances, members of the mob seem to interpret this as a further inspiration, lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly, later, even when the President did half heartedly began calling for peace. He didn't call right away for the right, good and who did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. In recent weeks, our ex presidents associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. Using the 74 million who voted for him is kind of a human shield against criticism. Anyone who describes his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That's an absurd deflection. 74 million Americans did not invade the capital. Hundreds of rioters did. 74 million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did. Just one. I've made my view of this episode very plain. But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the nation's overarching moral tribunal. We're not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. Justice Joseph Story, our notions first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool. A narrow tool for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to, "secure the state against gross official misdemeanors," That is to protect the country from government officers. If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the house managers prove their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement. However, however, in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the ride. But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. Now, this is a closed question. No doubt. Donald Trump was the president when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who've reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article two, Section Four exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached tried or convicted. It's the president. It's the Vice President and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD227: Coronabus Health Care

15 februari 2021 | 111 min

The 116th Congress finished their reign by passing every section of government funding into law with COVID relief attached. In this episode, learn about the new COVID relief law after you hear about a surprise dingleberry that promises to end surprise medical billing in the United States. That's right! Something good happened! Find out in this episode how the new provisions will positively affect you. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Oversights of CAREs CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law Surprise Medical Bills Coronabus Outline H.R.133: Congress.gov The Federal government will pay 100% of the cost of funeral expenses that the Governor of a state chooses to pay for expenses through 12/31/2020. : Provides $10 billion and expand eligibility by waiving eligibility restrictions tied to income. It specifically mentions health care sector employees, emergency responders, sanitation workers, farm workers, and other "workers deemed essential during the response to coronavirus by public officials". The money can be used to pay for co-payments and tuition payments for families. : Provides $22,945,000,000 for vaccines and $22,400,000,000 for testing and contract tracing. : Provides almost $82 billion available through September 2022 to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestically or internationally”. $2.75 billion will go to "non-public schools". Non-public schools can not also take PPP money if they apply for this money. : Provides $2 billion for airports, and requires them to retain at least 90 percent of their workforce as of March 27, 2020 (minus retirements and employees who quit) until February 15th TITLE I - HEALTHCARE Medicare fee schedules will be increased by 3.75% from January 1, 2021 through January 1, 2022. Prohibits judicial review of the fee schedules that determine payment amounts. Funds it with $3 billion plus "necessary" amounts from the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. TITLE II - ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, AND BUSINESSES Extends the eligibility period for COVID-19 unemployment payments through March 14, 2021. People who haven't used their benefit eligibility of 50 weeks can get payments through April 5, 2021. Gives individuals the right to appeal denials of their unemployment benefits, but any denials issued before the end of 2020 will stand. Adds $300 in federal tax money to the weekly unemployment benefits we receive from our states from December 26, 2020 through March 14, 2021. Requires people filing for COVID unemployment benefits who aren't usually eligible (such as self-employed people, people who can't work because they are sick with COVID or caring for a COVID, etc.) to provide documentation to prove they are employed or self employed. The law is not specific about what kind of documentation is required. Starting in February 2021, people in this category have to submit documents every week proving they are still, caring for someone who is sick, or can't work for another eligible reason. Requires the states to verify the identity of any approved to receive COVID unemployment payments. States need to start doing this by February 1. By February 1, states have to set up a snitching hotline or website for employers to use to rat on employees who refuse to return to work "without good cause." The definition of good cause is left up to the states. Individuals making up to $75,000 - based on 2019 taxes - will receive a $600 "tax credit", in addition to $600 per dependent A business that receives a PPP loan that is forgiven does not have to count that money as income and expenses paid with the PPP money can be deducted. Students who receive emergency financial aid grants don’t have to count the money as income Extended a tax credit for employers which would cover 100% of the costs of paid sick and family leave they offer to their employees and the tax credit for self-employed people for the days they can’t work because of COVID until March 31, 2021. TITLE III - CONTINUING THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM AND OTHER SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Expands the list of expenses that can be paid using PPP funds to include operations expenditures, property damage caused by the BLM protests in summer 2020 that were not covered by insurance, supplier costs, and worker protection measures related to COVID safety. Exempts the banks that administer the PPP program from lawsuits related to loan origination or forgiveness for a second draw of PPP loans as long as they collect required paperwork "in good faith". Creates a simplified application process for PPP loan forgiveness for loans less than $150,000. Those loans "shall be forgiven" if the person submits a 1 page document describing how many employees were retained thanks to the loan, how much of the loan was spent on payroll, and the total loan amount. The recipient will have to retain employment records for 4 years after submitting the application. The banks are not allowed to require any other documents for loan forgiveness. This is effective from the signing of the CARES Act. Clarifies that "group life, disability, vision, or dental insurance" counts as payroll costs, which can be paid using PPP loan money. Allows people to get a second round of forgivable PPP loans with the amount based on their payroll expenses for the last year or 2019 with a maximum loan amount of $2 million. Limits the size of the business to one with fewer than 300 employees per location, instead of 500 employees per location. Allows PPP funds to be given to tax exempt business organizations, including organizations that engage in lobbying Congress. Prohibits PPP funds from being used on lobbying expenses. A business that is more than 20% owned or controlled by the President, Vice President, the head of an Executive department or a member of Congress or their spouses is not eligible to receive PPP loans. Live performance venues, except ones that "present live performances of a prurient sexual nature", that have taken in 30% or less of their 2019 revenues can get grants to help make up for 45% of their lost revenue during the pandemic. $2 billion is set aside for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Prohibits publicly traded companies from receiving PPP loans. TITLE IV - TRANSPORTATION Provides $15 billion to pay the salaries and benefits of passenger airlines and $1 billion for contractors. Conditions the money on the promise from the airlines and contractors that they won't lay anyone off or reduce their pay until March 31, 2021 and that the money won't be used to buy the companies stock or pay out dividends until March 31, 2022. Airlines or contractors that accept this money will have 72 hours from the time they accept the agreement with government to recall any employees they laid off. The employees who return will receive back pay from December 1, 2020 (minus any severance they received). Freezes the pay of anyone in the airlines accepting our tax money funded bailout who made more than $425,000/year in 2019 to their 2019 pay levels until October 1, 2022. No one in the company will be allowed to collect more than $3 million plus 50% of the amount over $3 million that they earned in 2019. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Pete Buttigeg) to require an airline to maintain service to any destination that airline served on March 20, 2020, if the airline accepts the COVID bailout money. This authority automatically expires on March 1, 2022. Provides $2 billion to transportation service companies that have lost at least 25% of their revenue due to COVID-19 that has fewer than 500 employees or a company with over 500 employees that hasn't received a bailout yet. The companies have to use at least 60% of the money to pay up to $100,000/yr per employee in salary as long as they don't furlough any more workers (they can spend the money on other things if all their workers are back and making their 2019 pay levels already). TITLE V - BANKING Provides $25 billion for rental assistance . The money will be given to the states and 90% of it needs to be used to pay rent, utilities, home energy costs, and other costs as determined by the Treasury Secretary. Under no circumstance can any household get payments for more than 15 months. The money will flow from the government directly to the landlord or utility provider (unless the landlord or utility provider refuses to accept the payment, which is the only circumstance during which the household will get the money). To be eligible you either have to have income below 50% of the area median income or one or more individuals in the home have been unemployed for at least 90 days. Landlords are allowed to apply on behalf of their tenants, with their permission and signature on the application. The funding expires December 31, 2021. Extends the eviction moratorium through January 31, 2021. Creates a new fund with $9 billion to give money to banks - by purchasing their stock - to lend out in low income and minority communities. The administration of these purchases can be outsourced to "any bank, savings association, trust company, security broker or dealer, asset manager, or investment advisor as a financial agent of the Federal Government." The law sets no limits on executive compensation, share buybacks, or dividend payments for the recipients of the bank's lending (the Secretary of the Treasury gets to make those rules). The authority for using this $9 billion is valid until 6 months after the emergency declared on March 13, 2020 is terminated. Extends the that exempted banks from relatively new reporting requirements on their credit losses until the end of the emergency or January 1, 2022, an extra year. Extends the that allows banks to avoid counting troubled loans as troubled on their balance sheets until 60 days after the emergency declared on March 13th ends or January 1, 2022, an extra year. This law also expands the eligibility to include insurance companies. TITLE VI - LABOR PROVISIONS Temporarily allows people who have already turned 25 to qualify for the Jobs Corps. TITLE VII - NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURE RELIEF From January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, food stamp beneficiaries will get 115% of the amount they received in June 2020. Money received from Federal unemployment payments - the money provided on top of state payments - will not be counted as income for the month the money was received or for the 9 months that follow for the purpose of determining food stamp eligibility. Provides over $11 billion for farmers and those that provide for local food systems such as farmers markers, restaurants, and schools. $1.5 billion will be used to purchase food for hungry Americans. $1 billion of this money can be used to pay up to 80% of the revenue losses of contract growers of livestock and poultry for the period beginning on January 1, 2020 (two months before COVID) through January 1, 2021. TITLE VIII - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Allows the postal service to keep the money it was loaned by the CARES Act TITLE IX - BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE Creates the "Emergency Broadband Benefit Program" funded with $3.2 billion, which allows households that qualify for some other COVID relief benefits can also get a monthly $50 discount on their internet service, or $100 if they are renting equipment, but only if their internet service provide elects to participate in the program. The FCC will reimburse the internet companies directly for the discounts. Companies that accept the money are not allowed to require an early termination fee of new customers who get service due to this benefit who then decide to cancel later. This is valid until 6 months after the end of the emergency is declared. TITLE X - MISCELLANEOUS Rescinds $429 billion out of the $500 billion that was provided the CARES Act to provide loans and invest in corporate bonds by the Federal Reserve. Terminates the authority created by the CARES Act for the Federal Reserve to make loans or purchase securities using the Main Street Lending Program, or the authorities granted to loan money to state and local governments. They can still make loans using the Term Asset-Back Securities Loan Facility. They are allowed to restructure and extend existing loans. Clarifies that the Federal Reserve is not in any way restricted from using authorities it already had before enactment of the CARES Act. TITLE I - NO SURPRISES ACT Starting on January 1, 2022, any health insurance company that provides "any benefits" in an emergency department can not require pre-authorization of those services or deny coverage because the emergency department is out of their network. If emergency services are provided out-of-network, there can not be any limits on coverage any more restrictive than what would be covered by an in-network emergency department and the out-of-pocket costs can't be more than they would be in-network. Out-of-pocket payments at an out-of-network emergency room must count towards in-network deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. Emergency services include any care that happens in connection to the emergency visit, regardless of what department of the hospital provides the services. After the patient is stabilized, inpatient or outpatient stays in connection to that event are also covered. Loophole: Services are not covered if the patient is able to travel without medical transportation, is able to provide informed consent, and "other conditions" that will be determined by regulation. The prices to be paid by insurers will be based on the median price paid in the geographic area for similar services, and it will increase along with the consumer price index. In the case of a out-of-network doctor who works at an in-network hospital, if that doctor doesn't notify the patient that he/she is out-of-network, the health insurance company can't require the patient to pay any more out of pocket than they would pay if the doctor were in-network. Any cost-sharing payments must be applied to the in-network deductible and annual maximum out of pocket limits. This also applies to air ambulance providers. Health insurance companies are no longer allowed to require referrals for women to go to the gynecologist. Health insurance plans are still allowed to require gynecologists to notify the plan and/or the primary care doctor of their treatment decisions. To determine how much an insurance company will directly pay to an out-of-network provider, the provider has 30 days from receiving a payment or a denial of payment to start a negotiation process. If the negotiation fails, within four days, the provider or health insurance company can elect to start an independent dispute resolution. The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury have until the end of 2021 to create this process by regulation. The regulation process will determine who will be certified to act as the dispute resolution judge, but it is not allowed to be an affiliate, subsidiary or trade group that represents a health insurance company or health care provider. The independent disputer settler will have 30 days to make the payment determination. The payment amounts can consider the comparable rates in the geographic region, the market share that provider controls in the region, the complexity of the patients case, and if either side made any effort to be in each other's network. They payment amounts can not consider the amount the provider usually chooses to charge or the rates usually paid by Medicare and Medicaid. The decisions will be binding and not subject to judicial review, unless there is evidence of fraud. The insurance company will have 30 days from the decision date to pay the bill. A lot of information about who uses this process and its results will be made public. The emergency departments and doctors can't send patients bills for anything more than their co-pay amounts. Out-of-network doctors working at in-network facilities are also prohibited from sending bills that are greater than the co-pay amounts. Out of network doctors at in-network facilities that provide services such as anesthesiology, radiology, and lab services can send bills to patients if the the patient makes an appointment to see them 72 hours or more in advance of their treatment and if the patient signs a written notice or email. The notice has to inform the patient that getting treated by the out-of-network doctor is optional and that they have the option to get treated by an in-network doctor, along with a list of in-network doctors available to provide the service. The notice also has to inform the patient that the amount they pay may not apply to their out-of-pocket limits or in-network deductible. The notice has to be dated and signed by the patient before they receive the services. Loophole: The notice has to have a "good faith estimated amount" that the provider "may" charge, but that that amount is not a contractual obligation. The states are given the authority to enforce these laws. If the state refuses to enforce them, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the ability to enforce them, and issue fines to doctors (and specifically air ambulance operators) up to $10,000 per violation. There will be a process for submitting complaints to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the department has 60 days to respond. The doctor or air ambulance operator can avoid the fine by withdrawing the bill, reimbursing the patient for the difference between what they were charged and what they should have been charged, plus interest, within 30 days. Loophole: The law does give the Secretary of HHS the permission to create a "hardship exemption" to the fines. Establishes similar laws for air ambulance operators as are enacted for emergency rooms and out-of-network doctors working at in-network facilities. Patients with health insurance who receive air ambulance services can only be charged the in-network rate for a copay. Air ambulance companies are not allowed to bill patients with health insurance more than their co-pay amount. By January 1, 2022, health insurances have to issue new insurance identification cards which include "any deductible", "any out-of-pocket limit", and a telephone number and internet website that patients can use to find out who is in-network. Starting on January 1, 2022, before a patient receives a scheduled service, the health insurance company has to send them a physical notice or email - patient's choice - about whether they are schedule to see an in-network or out-of-network doctor. If they are scheduled for an in-network appointment, they have to tell the patients the contracted rate for the service. If they are scheduled for an out-of-network appointment, they have to tell the patient how to find an in-network doctor. The notice also has to include cost estimates, including an estimate submitted by the doctor, how much the health insurance company will probably pay, the cost of any co-pays, and how close the patient is to reaching any out-of-pocket limits. The notice must also include a disclaimer that these are only estimates. Starting on January 1, 2022, before a patient receives a scheduled service, the doctor needs to ask the patient if they have insurance, are covered bypass a government plan, or have no insurance. If the patient has insurance, they have to provide the health insurance company or the government with a "good faith estimate" of the expected charges with the billing codes for the expected services. If the person does not have insurance, the estimate has to be given directly to the patient. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will have to create a process by January 1, 2022 for uninsured patients who are charged more than their estimates to have their bill determined by an independent dispute resolution authority. If a health insurance plan ends its contract with a patient's doctor, the health insurance company has to notify the patient and give the patient the opportunity to request and be granted 90 days of keeping the co-payment structure they had while the doctor was in-network. Health insurance companies will have to offer patients - via telephone and internet - a tool that allows them to compare the co-pays they would be responsible for if they received a service from each of their in-network providers. Requires health insurance companies to accurately maintain their in-network provider database. If the patient gets information about a doctor from an outdated database, or if the patient's requests for information go unanswered, the insurance company must charge the patient in-network copays, but the deductible will be applied to the out-of-network maximum limit. TITLE II - TRANSPARENCY Health insurance companies will be prohibited from contractually preventing doctors from revealing their pricing agreements to referring doctors, the patient, the patient's employer, or people eligible to be a part of that health insurance plan. Restrictions can be placed upon what information is made public. Starting at the beginning of 2022, health insurance companies will annually submit a report to the government about the 50 most common prescription drugs they pay for, the 50 most expensive prescription drugs, and the 50 prescription drugs with the greatest increase in price. The report also has to break down the costs of other categories of care, such as hospital visits, provider costs, and drug costs. They will also have to report on the average amount monthly premiums they receive from employers and patients. TITLE XIV - COVID-19 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT For the duration of the public emergency, it will be illegal for "any person, partnership, or corporation" to deceive anyone in association with a COVID-19 treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis or a government benefit related to COVID-19. This will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and violators can be fined Articles/Documents Article: , By Anna Wilde Mathews, Tom McGinty and Melanie Evans, The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2021 Article: , By Richard Rubin, The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2021 Article: , By KFF.org, February 4, 2021 Article: , By Brandon Brockmyer and Ryan Summers, Pogo, February 3, 2021 Article: , By Katherine Khashimova Long, Seattle Times, February 2, 2021 Article: , By Ellie Kaverman and Andrew Stettner, The Century Foundation, February 2, 2021 Article: &firstPage=true), By Jody Godoy, Westlaw Today, January 20, 2021 Article: , By Liam Vaughan and Gavin Finch, The Guardian, January 18, 2021 Article: , By White & Case LLP, Lexology, January 7, 2021 News Release: , Department of Labor, December 30, 2020 Document: , By Congressional Budget Office, December 27, 2020 Article: , By Rachel Lilienthal Stark, National Law Review, December 22, 2020 Article: , By Julie Appleby, npr, December 22, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Steve Liesman, CNBC, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Robert Channick, Chicago Tribune, May 21, 2020 Article: , By Tim Ott, Biography, September 28, 2020 Sound Clip Sources News Clip: , Today, February 11, 2021 Hearing: , House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, February 4, 2021 Witnesses: Executive Director of Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law School Former Director of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission She served at the FTC for 26 years Transcript: 44:40 Bonnie Patten: The list of deceptively marketed products and services exploiting this pandemic is extensive. CBD products marketed to military veterans as a Coronavirus treatment, bleach advertised as a liquid cure all, Wellness Centers targeting first responders, with IV vitamin drips to protect against COVID-19. Amazon and eBay sellers falsely claiming that their PPE FDA approved. Hand sanitizer marketed is protecting for 24 hours against COVID-19. Alleged immune immunity boosting supplements targeting children. Colloidal Silver solutions advertised as having the ability to kill the virus from within. Toothpaste and teeth whitening products claiming to prevent COVID-19 and Sham wellness kits targeting seniors. Unfortunately, the deception does not stop with outrageous health claims. Many are exploiting the economic desperation wrought by this pandemic. Multi level marketing companies claiming people can earn full time pay working part time. Lending companies deceptively using the cares act to exploit college students. Investment scams claiming to have patented COVID cures and financial entities pretending to be SBA authorized lenders to lure in small businesses struggling to keep their workers employed. 46:15 Bonnie Patten: And to make matters worse, the agency primarily charged with policing these deceptive acts, the FTC, is now at risk of losing a mainstay of its enforcement authority and the ability to make victims whole under Section 13-b. Because 13-b does not specifically say anything about equitable relief when a permanent injunction is issued, the Supreme Court is now deciding the remedial scope, if any of 13-b in the case AMG vs FTC. AMG was a payday lending scheme that extracted money from people in desperate circumstances and in its appeal, the company does not dispute that it violated the law. Instead, it argues that the $1.3 billion it's stole should be it's to keep. AMG asserts that it was never Congress's intention for the FTC to return money to victims of fraud under 13-b. Quite to the contrary. AMG argues that this legislative body fully endorsed the notion that wrongdoers should pocket the money they've illegally taken when it drafted 13-b. If the Supreme Court rules in AMG's favor, and this Congress does not act to empower the FTC to seek restitution under 13-b, then the deceptive practices I have enumerated will only multiply. 1:17:40 Jessica Rich: The new law covers a huge amount of scams. It's very broad as to COVID scams. So if a company engages in any of that activity, the FTC can pursue civil penalties and so just as Miss Patton just said, it's very important for deterrence to make it painful for fraudsters to rip off consumers. 1:18:20 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): But now that the FTC has this authority to find companies who've committed fraud and scams related to the pandemic under this new law, why is it still important to ensure that the FTC 13 b authority is preserved? Why is that so important? Bonnie Patten: COVID scams are terrible, but they're one of many frauds that the FTC has to fight all year long in and out of a pandemic. So in many of those cases, the FTC doesn't have civil penalty authority, and its rigorous authority is under threat. So it's a much broader problem that goes beyond the COVID scams that are occurring here. And so it still needs to be fixed. 2:23:25 Rep. Darren Soto (FL): Is this being sufficiently used already by the FTC? Do you anticipate gaps in all this law realizing it just was passed? Bonnie Patten: To my knowledge, the FTC has not yet used that act. But that's the only information I know, that there's no public on their website. It does have gaps. It does. You cannot target work from home scams using this, because it's really focused primarily on government benefits, scams and healthcare scams. But what I would say is that, while it's absolutely critical to have an act like this, at this time, during the pandemic, I would warn you that it doesn't provide for coverage for the next disaster. For the next earthquake for the next fire, what have you, there are unfortunately will always be a segment of our population that is in devastating events. And so I think that legislation is necessary that covers all such events and not just focused on the pandemic. Hearing: , Congressional Oversight Commission, December 10, 2020 Witnesses: Eric Rosengren - President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Gwen Mills - Secretary Treasurer of Unite Here Lauren Anderson - Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel of the Bank Policy Institute Transcript: 03:20 Bharat Ramamurti: Four months ago, Congress gave the Treasury Department half a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy. The Treasury quickly pledged 75 billion of those dollars to the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program for small and mid sized companies. After taking three months to set up the program, the Fed has now been operating it for about a month. In that time, it has supported only 18 loans for a total of $104 million. That is 0.017% of the $600 billion lending capacity that the Fed touted for the program in April. 16:07 Eric Rosengren: This facility is very different than some of the other traditional kinds of facilities that central banks operate during a time of crisis. So most of our facilities operate through markets, market securities, you can purchase them very easily through the market. They clear usually in a couple days depending on the security. So it's relatively easy to quickly purchase a large number of securities and hold those securities over time. This facility is a facility we didn't have during the financial crisis, and really tries to get to a different segment of the population, which is those businesses that are bigger than the PPP program was designed for and smaller than what the corporate facilities are designed for. Session: , Senate, July 29, 2020 Session: , Senate, July 28, 2020 News Clip: , CBS News, July 28, 2020 Hearing: , Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Health, June 12, 2019 Witnesses: Sonji Wilkes: Patient Advocate Sherif Zaafran, MD: Chair of Physicians for Fair Coverage Rick Sherlock: President and CEO of Association of Air Medical Services James Gelfand: Senior Vice President of Health Policy at The ERISA Industry Committee Thomas Nickels: Executive Vice President of the American Hospital Association Jeanette Thornton: Senior Vice President of Proiduct, Employer, and Commercial Policy at Americas’ Health Insurance Plans Claire McAndrew: Director of Campaigns and Partnerships at Families USA Vidor E. Friedman, MD: President of American College of Emergency Physicians Transcript: 51:50 CEO Rick Sherlock: $10,199 was the median cost of providing a helicopter transport. While Medicare paid $5,998, Medicaid paid $3,463 and the uninsured paid $354. This results in an ongoing imbalance between actual costs and government reimbursement and is the single biggest factor in increasing costs. 53:45 Senior VP James Gelfand: We're focused on three scenarios in which patients end up with big bills they couldn't see coming or avoid. Number one, a patient receives care at an in-network facility, but is treated by an out of network provider. Number two, a patient requires emergency care, but the provider's facility or transportation are out of network. And number three, a patient is transferred or handed off without sufficient information or alternatives. It's usually not the providers you're planning to see. It's anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, or emergency providers or transport or an unexpected trip to the NICU. Many work for outsourced medical staffing firms that have adopted a scam strategy of staying out of networks, practicing at in-network facilities and surprise billing patients. It's deeply concerning, but the problem is narrowly defined and therefore we can fix it. Hearing: , House Committee on Education and Labor, April 2, 2019 Witnesses: Christen Linke Young: Fellow at USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy Ilyse Schuman: Senior Vice President for Health Policy at American Benefits Council Frederick Isasi, Executive Director at Families USA Professor Jack Hoadley: Research Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute Transcript: 33:50 Frederick Isasi: Take for example, one significant driver of this problem. The movement of hospitals to offload sapping requirements for their emergency departments to third party management companies. These hospitals very often make no requirements of these companies to ensure the staffing of the ED fit within the insurance networks that the hospitals have agreed to. As a result, a patient who does their homework ahead of time and rightly thinks they're going to an in network hospital, received services from an out of network physician and a surprise medical bill follows. 43:30 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): Under current law, who is responsible for making sure that a doctor or a hospital is in-network? Is it the doctor, the insurance company or the patient themselves? Frederick Isasi: Uh, chairman Wilson, thank you for the question. To be very clear, it is the patient themselves that has a responsibility and these negotiations are very complex. These are some of the most important and intense negotiations in the healthcare sector between a payer and a provider. There is absolutely no visibility for a consumer to understand what's going on there. And so the notion that a consumer would walk into an emergency department and know, for example, that their doctor was out of network because that hospital could not reach agreement on an in-network provider for the ED is absurd, right? There's no way they would ever know that. And similarly, if you walk in and you received surgery and it turns out your anesthesiologist isn't in-network, there's no way for the consumer to know that. Um, and I would like to say there's some discussion about transparency and creating, you know, sort of provider directories. We've tried to do that in many instances. And what we know is that right now the healthcare sector has no real way to provide real actual insight to consumers about who's in-network, and who's out of network. I would-probably everybody in this room has tried at some point to figure out if a doctor's in-network and out of network and as we know that system doesn't work. So this idea that consumers can do research and find out what's happened behind the scenes in these very intensive negotiations is absurd and it doesn't work. 46:30 Professor Jack Hoadley: Provider directories can be notoriously inaccurate. One of the things that, even if they are accurate, that I've seen in my own family is you may be enrolled in Blue Cross-You ask your physician, "are they participating in Blue Cross? They say "yes", but it turns out Blue Cross has a variety of different networks. This would be true of any insurance company, and so you know, you may be in this one particular flavor of the Blue Cross plan and your provider may not participate in that particular network. 1:01:25 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): I've had my name in networks that I wasn't in. That you-that you use, and many of those unscrupulous networks, will use that too to get people to sign up because this doctor, my doctor is in there when you're really not. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD226: The 116th Lame Duck

25 januari 2021 | 125 min

We just lived through the craziest lame duck period - the time between when the President and members of Congress keep their power after being fired in an election - in United States history. In this episode, we look at everything that happened, from start to finish. That was literally one Hell of a ride. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Kicking the Funding Can Bills H.R. 1520 (116th): Congress.gov H.J.Res. 110 (116th): Congress.gov H.J.Res. 107 (116th): Congress.gov H.R. 8900 (116th): Congress.gov Articles/Documents Article: , By Kevin Freking, AP, January 21, 2021 Article: , By Ted Mann, Dustin Volz, Lindsay Wise and Chad Day, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 11, 2021 Article: , By Fiona Hill, Politico, January 11, 2021 Article: , WSFA News, January 11, 2021 Article: , By Jeremy Roebuck and Jonathan Lai, Inquirer, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jenny Gross and Luke Broadwater, The New York Times, January 7, 2021 Article: , By Jonathan Turley, January 6, 2021 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Ethan Cohen, Liz Stark and Adam Levy, CNN, January 3, 2021 Article: , By Mike Lillis and Scott Wong, The Hill, January 3, 2021 Article: , By John Kruzel, The Hill, January 2, 2021 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, January 1, 2021 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, January 1, 2021 Article: , By Jim Acosta, Jamie Gangel and Paul LeBlanc, CNN, December 30, 2020 Article: , By Tal Axelrod, The Hill, December 30, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 29, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 28, 2020 Article: , By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, December 28, 2020 Article: , By Naomi Jagoda and Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 24, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton and Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 24, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, December 23, 2020 Article: , By Niv Elis, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 21, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Alexander Bolton and Mike Lillis, The Hill, December 19, 2020 Article: , By Brett Samuels, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Scott Bomboy, Constitution Daily, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Harper Neidig, The Hill, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 15, 2020 Letter: , By William P. Barr, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Juliegrace Brufke and Scott Wong, The Hill, December 10, 2020 Article: , By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By John Kruzel, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Harper Neidig, The Hill, December 8, 2020 Article: , By Edmund DeMarche, Morgan Phillips | Fox News, December 7, 2020 Article: , By Brett Samuels, The Hill, December 1, 2020 Article: , By Michael Balsamo, December 1, 2020 Article: , By Lily Hay Newman, Wired, November 27, 2020 Article: , By Pete Williams and Nicole Via y Rada, NBC News, November 23, 2020 Document: , Congressional Research Service, December 15, 2016 Article: , By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and James Dao, The New York Times, December 17, 2005 Additional Resources , U.S. House of Representatives , Clerk of U.S. House of Representatives, January 13, 2021 Sound Clip Sources Video: , Twitter, Newsmax January 12, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Transcript: , U.S. House of Representatives, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Video: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Debate: , U.S. Senate, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 News Address: , CNN, January 6, 2021 Footage: , Youtube.com, January 6, 2021 Debate: , The Washington Post, January 6, 2021 , The Hill, January 6, 2021 Video: , White House, C-SPAN, January 6, 2021 Video: , White House, rev.com, January 6, 2021 , The Washington Post, January 5, 2021 Document: , U.S. District Court For The Eastern District of Texas, December 27, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Reuters, December 15, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Yahoo Finance, December 11, 2020 News Clip: , NBC News, December 11, 2020 News Clip: , Youtube, Senator Rand Paul, December 10, 2020 Ballot Count: , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 , U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, C-SPAN, January 6, 2005 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD225: Targets of the Free Marketeers

21 december 2020 | 118 min

While the focus of the world has been on the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress has been busy preparing a war authorization for the incoming Joe Biden administration. In this episode, we examine the advice given to Congress in nine recent hearings to learn which countries are on the World Trade System naughty list, as Jen prepares to read the NDAA that's soon to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes The Brink of the Iran War Yemen The Democracies of Elliott Abrams A Coup for Capitalism National Endowment for Democracy Combating Russia NDAA Bombing Libya Bills H.R.526: Congress.gov H.Res.751: Congress.gov H.Res.1120: Congress.gov H.Res.1183: Congress.gov Articles/Documents Article: , By Gregory Feifer, Slate, December 18, 2020 Article: , U.S. Chamber of Commerce, December 17, 2020 Article: , By Jason Gutierrez, The New York Times, December 15, 2020 Article: , By Stephanie Saul, Kate Kelly and Michael LaForgia, The New York Times, December 2, 2020 Article: , By Ahmet Kavas, Daily Sabah, November 25, 2020 Article: , By Aly Verjee, United States Institute of Peace, November 24, 2020 Article: , Human Rights Watch, November 23, 2020 Article: , By Paul McLeary, DefenseNews, November 10, 2020 Article: , By Aaron Mehta, DefenseNews, November 10, 2020 Article: By Payce Madden, Brookings, November 7, 2020 Article: By Vijay Prashad, Asia Times, November 4, 2020 Article: By Addis Ababa, Reuters, October 30, 2020 Press Release: , By Alexis Arieff, Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2020 Article: By Jeff Abbott, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, October 8, 2020 Article: By Simon Marks and Abdi Latif Dahir, The New York Times, September 10, 2020 Article: International Republican Institute, September 10, 2020 Article: , BBC News, September 3, 2020 Press Release: , By Cory Welt, Congressional Research Service, August 24, 2020 Press Release: , Ilhan Omar, August 13, 2020 Article: By Pauline Bax and Michael Kavanagh, Bloomberg Green, August 7, 2020 Article: By Magdi Abdelhadi, BBC News, July 29, 2020 Article: U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, July 21, 2020 Article: By Hamza Mohamed, Aljazeera, July 10, 2020 Article: By Eli Clifton, Responsible Statecraft, May 14, 2020 Article: By David A. Wemer, Atlantic Council, February 11, 2020 Article: By Lee Fang, The Intercept, July 22, 2018 Article: By Timothy J. Burger, Town & Country, August 10, 2017 Article: By Charles Kenny and John Norris, Foreign Policy, May 8, 2015 Document: By David Lunde, University of Denver, 2014 Article: By Maud Jullien, BBC News, November 15, 2013 Article: By Slobodan Lekic, Los Angeles Times, September 3, 2006 Article: By Jonathan Guyer, The American Prospect Article: By Bama Cham, Eden Newspaper Article: , Yoseph Badwaza and Jon Temin, Freedom House Article: , Financial Times Article: , Welcome to the Congo Reform Association Article: , By LOUIS EDGAR DETWILER, TIME, August 01, 1960 Additional Resources The Jamestown Foundation African Union Council on Foreign Relations National Democratic Institute International Center for Not-For-Profit Law , LinkedIn , Middle East Institute LinkedIn International Republican Institute , LinkedIn , The Marathon Initiative , Westexec Advisors Employment Timeline: OpenSecrets.org , LinkedIn Americas Society Council of the Americas African Union History: National Endowment for Democracy U.S. International Development Finance Corporation The German Marshall Fund of the United States U.S. Agency For Global Media , The Jamestown Foundation Freedom House , LinkedIn , LinkedIn , The Dialogue , Growth in the Americas International Capital Strategies McLarty Associates , LinkedIn Summary: OpenSecrets.org , United States Institute of Peace , The Beacon Project, October 2020 ALBRIGHT STONEBRIDGE GROUP , Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance , Freedom House Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs, December 8, 2020 Witnesses: Madeleine Albright Chairman of the National Democratic Institute Chairman of the Albright Stonebridge Group, a global strategy firm Chairman of Albright Capital Management , an investment advisory firm Member of the Council on Foreign Relations 2003-2005: Member of the Board of Directors of the NYSE 1997-2001: Secretary of State 1978-1981: National Security Council Staff Daniel Serwer Director of American Foreign Policy and Conflict Management at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University Former Vice President at the US Institute of Peace Former Minister Counselor at the State Department during the Clinton years Janusz Bugajski Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation Former Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) Hosts a tv show in the Balkans Transcript: 40:03 Rep. Eliot Engel (NY): Serbia has been importing Russian fighters and tanks and conducting military exercises with the Russian Army. A US Defense Department report told us that Belgrade's drift towards Moscow has mostly occurred since President Vučić took power. The same time democratic space in Serbia has shrunk in recent years. Freedom House describes Serbia as a, 'hybrid regime', not a democracy because of declining standards in governance, justice, elections and media freedom. If Serbia wants to become part of the European Union, and the North Atlantic family of nations, it needs to get off the fence and embrace a Western path. 56:17 Madeleine Albright: As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President Elect has been personally engaged in the Balkans since his time in the Senate. And he was one of the most outspoken leaders in Congress calling for the United States to help end the complex and I was honored to work closely with him throughout my time in office. And I know that he understands the region and its importance for the United States. The national security team that President Elect Biden is putting in place is deeply knowledgeable and committed to helping all the countries of the region move forward as part of a Europe that is whole free and at peace. And that's important, because today this vision is in peril. The nations of the Western Balkans are suffering deeply from the health and economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Corruption remains a serious problem, and nationalist leaders continue to stoke and exploit ethnic tensions. China and Russia are also exerting new influence in the region, with Serbia in particular the target of much anti Western propaganda. As the pandemic eases there will be an opportunity for the United States and Europe to help the region build back better, particularly as Western European countries seek to bring supply chains closer to home. And as new funds become available to invest in energy diversification and environmental protection. 59:36 Madeleine Albright: The answer is for the United States and the EU to work together to champion initiatives that help custom Bosnia and others build economic ties to Europe and the neighborhood while also pushing for needed political reforms. 1:00:00 Madeleine Albright: On Bosnia, the Dayton accords stopped a war and continue to keep the peace. But the governing arrangements are not captured by leaders among the three groups that negotiated the peace. They want to hold on to power even if it means holding their society back. While Bosnia is neighbors move toward EU membership, the United States and the European Union must focus their efforts in Bosnia on the abuse of government and state owned enterprises. Taking away the levers of power that keep the current system in place. 1:05:30 Daniel Serwer: Europe and the United States want a post state in Bosnia, they can qualify for EU membership. That Bosnia will be based not on ethnic power sharing, but rather on majorities of citizens electing their representatives. [?] entities as well as ethnic vetoes and restrictions we'll need to fade. the Americans and Europeans should welcome the prospect of a new Civic constitution. But no one outside Boston Herzegovina can reform its constitution, a popular movement is needed. The United States along with the Europeans needs to shield any popular movement from repression while starting the entities with funding and redirecting it to the central government and municipalities. 1:12:07 Janusz Bugajski: Moscow views Serbia in particular, and the Republic of Srpska in Bosnia as useful tools to subvert regional security and limit Western integration. 1:12:40 Janusz Bugajski: Western Balkan inclusion in the Three Seas Initiative and its North South transportation corridor will enhance economic performance and help provide alternatives to dependence on Russian energy and Chinese loans. 2:00:41: Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): Why do you think longer term in the Balkans its Chinese influence we need to be focused on? Janusz Bugajski:Thank you very much for that question. Let me begin with why Russia is not a longer term danger. Russia is a country in serious decline, economic decline. Its economies size of a medium sized European state. China has the second largest economy in the world. Russia has internal problems with its nationalities with its regions, with increasing public unrest with increasing opposition to put in them even be power struggles during the succession period over the next four years, Russia faces major internal problems. China, on the other hand, unless of course, there is opposition to the Chinese Communist Party from within, is in a different stage. It continues to be a very dynamic country in terms of its economic growth. It doesn't face the sort of internal contradictions and conflicts that Russia does. And it's increasingly.. China's always looked at the longer term. In other words, they don't even have to look at succession cycles, because of the dominance of the Communist Party. They are looking eventually to replace Russia as the major rival of the United States. And the best way to do that is to increase their influence not only militarily in East Asia, South Asia and other parts of the world, but economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, and through the media and that's precisely what they're doing, not only in Europe, but in other continents. 2:18:38 Madeleine Albright: I think that democracy and economic development go together also. Because as I put it, people want to vote and eat. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, December 3, 2020 Witnesses: Yoseph Badwaza Senior Advisor for Africa at Freedom House Former Secretary General of Ethiopian Human Rights Council Susan Stigant Director of the Africa Program at the United States Institute of Peace Former program director at the National Democratic Institute, focused on South Sudan Tsedale Lemma Editor in Chief and Founder of Addis Standard Magazine Lauren Ploch Blanchard Specialist in African Affairs at the Congressional Research Service Former East Africa Program Manager at the International Republican Institute Transcript: 35:32 Yoseph Badwaza: The devastating developments of the past four weeks have brought inmeasurable human suffering and the destruction of livelihoods and appear to have returned to yet another protracted civil war and nearly 30 years after it emerged from its last. These tragic events have also dealt a deadly blow to what would have been one of the most consequential democratic transitions on the African continent. 37:09 Yoseph Badwaza: A series of missed opportunities in the last two and a half years led to the tragic derailment of a promising democratic experiment. A half hearted effort at implementing reforms by a ruling party establishment reluctant to shape its deeply authoritarian roots. Roots stands in the way of a genuine inclusive political process. Hearing: , Committee on Armed Services, September 30, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. James Anderson Former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense (resigned the day after Trump fired DoD Secretary Mark Esper) 2006-2009: Director of Middle East Policy for the Secretary of Defense 2001-2006 - Gap in LinkedIn resume 2000-2001: Associate at DFI International, a multinational consulting firm 1997-1999: Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Lt. Gen David Allen: Director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff Transcript: 17:14 Dr. James Anderson: As we continue to implement the NDS or efforts at enhancing our European posture beyond Eucom Combat Command Review, have shown recent successes, including the signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with Poland in August that will enable an increased enduring US rotational presence in that country of about 1000 US military personnel. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, September 30, 2020 Witnesses: Christopher Fomunyoh Senior Associate for Africa at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Has been at NDI since 1993 Has worked for the Cameroon Water Corporation and Cameroon Airlines Corporation Dorina A. Bekoe, PhD Research Staff Member at the Institute for Defense Analyses Jon Temin Director of the Africa Program at Freedom House Freedom House gets most of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy 2014-2017: U.S. Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff Director of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Africa Program Member of the Council on Foreign Relations Non-resident Senior Associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Joshua Meservey Senior Policy Analyst for Africa and the Middle East at the Heritage Foundation since 2015 Former Associate Director of the Atlantic Council Former Field Team Manager for the Church World Service Resettlement Support Center Former Volunteer with the US Peace Corps Former intern for the US Army Special Operations Command Former Loss Prevention Coordinator for Dollar Financial Corporation Transcript: 7:13 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): I fear that 2020 may see an even greater decrease in democracy on the continent. Today's hearing is also timely, as elections are approaching next month in Tanzania and the Ivory Coast, both countries which appear to be on a downward trajectory in terms of governance and respect for civil and political rights. And I want to note that Chairwoman bass has introduced legislation with respect to Tanzania, and I'm very proud to be a co sponsor of it and I thank you for that leadership. 8:37 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): For example, was quite obvious to outside observers in the DRC that the declared winner of the latest presidential election held in late 2018. Felix Tshisekedi received less votes than Martin Fayulu low because of a corrupt bargain between the outgoing strongman Joseph Kabila Tshisekedi. The Constitutional Court packed by Kabila declared him to be the winner. What happened next was troubling, as our State Department issued a statement that said and I quote, 'the United States welcomes the Congolese Constitutional Court certification of Felix Tshisekedi as the next president of the DRC,' which was apparently driven by a handful of diplomats, including our ambassador. 9:26 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): Elections in Nigeria were first postponed by sitting President Buhari and marred by irregularities in advance of the election date, quitting arson attacks on the independent national Electoral Commission offices in opposition strongholds in Buhari's his removal of Supreme Court Justice Walter Onnoghen. 10:40 Rep. Chris Smith (NJ): Before Sudan is delisted as a state sponsor of terrorism, I also believe there must be justice for all victims of its past bad acts including the victims of 911, many of whom live in my home state of New Jersey and in my district. 14:44 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): Most concerning is the situation in Tanzania, which I recently addressed in House Resolution 1120 where current leadership is repressing the opposition and basic freedoms of expression and assembly in a blatant attempt to retain power. 15:00 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): We see similar patterns in Cote d'Ivoire as the executive branch legalizes the deviation in democratic institutions to codify non democratic actions. We have similar concerns about Guinea and are going to be very watchful of upcoming elections there. And in Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia. 15:57 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): What concerns me most is the democratic backsliding is not limited to Africa and we seem to be in a place of retreat from democracy that I only hope is an anomaly. In Europe, we see the egregious behavior of Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, who claimed success in a disputed August 9 election and sought support from extra national resources such as Russia to justify his claim to power. 17:28 Rep. Karen Bass (CA): President Duterte of the Philippines is accused of lawfare, or weaponizing the law to deter or defeat freedoms, personalities and establishments that promote human rights, press freedoms and the rule of law while also cracking down on individual freedoms. 24:39 Christopher Fomunyoh: NDI has over three decades of technical assistance to and support for democratic institutions and processes in Africa and currently runs active programs in 20 countries. 26:09 Christopher Fomunyoh: Notably, West Africa, previously commanded as a trailblazer region has seen serious backsliding, as Mali experienced a military coup, and major controversies have arisen about candidacies of incumbent presidents in Guinea, Conakry and Cote d'Ivoire. The Central Africa region remains stocked with the three with the highest concentration of autocratic regimes with the three longest serving presidents in the world. In that sub region, notably Equatorial Guinea forty one years, Cameroon 38 years, and Congo Brazzaville 38 years. 26:50 Christopher Fomunyoh: In southern and East Africa, continued persecution of political opposition and civil society activists in Zimbabwe and similar worrying signs or patterns in Tanzania since 2016 seriously diminished citizen participation in politics and governance and also stand my prospects for much needed reforms. 31:31 Dorina A. Bekoe: Mali's 2012 coup took place even though there was a regularly scheduled election just one month away. And the coup in August of this year took place despite the fact that in 2018 there was a presidential election and last year there were legislative elections. 38:44 Jon Temin: The United States should consider changes to term and age limits that allow incumbent leaders to extend their time in office as essentially a coup against the constitution and respond accordingly. These moves by leaders who have already served two terms are an usurpation of power, that deny the country and its citizens the many benefits of leadership rotation. 40:07 Jon Temin: In Sudan the long overdue process of removing the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism may soon conclude, but that is not enough. The United States needs to support the civilian component of Sudan's transitional government at every step of the long road toward democracy and do all that it can to revive Sudan's economy. 40:25 Jon Temin: In Ethiopia, there are deeply concerning signs that the government is reaching for tools of repression that many hoped were relegated to history. Nonetheless, Ethiopia remains on a tentative path to democratic elections that can be transformative. In this context, the decision by the United States to withhold development assistance from Ethiopia in a quixotic and counterproductive effort to influence Ethiopia's negotiating position concerning the grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is bad policy that should be reversed. 41:00 Jon Temin: Nascent democratic transitions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Gambia and Angola also call for strong US support. 1:10:21 Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN): I want to start with Dr. Fomunyoh. In your testimony you discuss the massacres committed in the Anglophone region of Cameroon. Did the United States provide training funding or arms to the Cameroonian security forces who committed those massacres? 1:12:20 Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN): Did the Millennium military officers who led the recent coup [??] receive US military training? And if you can just say yes or no, because I have a few more questions and we have limited time. 1:29:23 Jon Temin: Freedom in the world, which we do every year rates every country in the world that includes the United States, the United States score was decreasing before this administration, we have seen a slow slippage of democracy in America for some time, rating based on our scores. That decrease has accelerated under this administration. 1:30:00 Jon Temin: I think part of it has to do with freedom for journalists. I believe there's been some concern there. Part of it has to do with corruption and some of the indications that we've seen of corrupt activity within government. I'll leave it there. We're happy to go dig into that and provide you more detail. And I'm sure that when we look at the scores again later this year, there will be a robust conversation on the United States. Hearing: , Committee on Armed Services, September 23, 2020 Witnesses: Christine Wormuth On Joe Biden's presidential transition team 2018- present: Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation 2017-2018: Founding Director of the Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience at the Atlantic Council 2017-2018: Senior Advisor for the Center for Strategic and International Studies 2010-2014: Various DoD positions, rising to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 2004-2009: Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies 2002-2004: Principal at DFI Government Services, an international defense consulting firm Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges Center for European Policy Analysis Board of Advisors for the Spirit of America (not listed on hearing bio) Board of Directors is made up of CEOs of mulitnational corporations Board of Advisors is full of corporate titans and big names, including Michelle Flournoy, Jeh Johnson, Kimberly Kagan, Jack Keane, James Mattis, Stanley McChrystal, H.R. McMaster, & George Shultz 2014-2017: Commanding General of the US Army in Europe Elbridge Colby Principal and co-Founder of the Marathon Initiative Formed in May 2020 Senior Advisor to WestExec Advisors (not listed on hearing bio) Co-Founded by incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Michelle Flournoy, who told the Intercept in 2018, "we help tech firms who are trying to figure out how to sell in the public sector space, to navigate the DOD, the intel community, law enforcement." 2018-2019: Director of the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security Northrup Grumman is one of its biggest donors, also gets funding from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Boeing, and DynCorp. 2017-2018: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development Lead official in the creation of the 2018 National Defense Strategy 2010-2017: Center for a New American Security GWB administration (not listed on his LinkedIn) 2005-2006: worked with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2004-2005: President GWB's WMD Commission 2003: worked with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq Transcript: 17:14 20:08 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: Second point of emphasis requires us to place importance on the greater Black Sea where. I believe the great power competition prevents great power conflict, failure to compete and to demonstrate interest and willingness to protect those interests in all domains, power vacuums and miscalculations which can lead to escalation and to actual conflict. This is particularly true in the greater Black Sea region, where Russia is attempting to maximize its sphere of influence. The Black Sea region should be the place where the United States and our NATO allies and partners hold the line. The Black Sea should matter to the west in part because it [was to the Kremlin.] taking the initiative away from the Kremlin denies the ability to support the Assad regime in Syria and then to live will reduce the flow of rich into Europe, or General Breedlove called the weaponization of refugee. Limit the Kremlin's ability to spread his thoughts of influence in the Balkans which is the Middle East and North Africa. 21:28 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: We must repair the relationship between Turkey and the United States. And see Turkey [?] as an exposed ally at the crossroads of several regions and challenges. Turkey is essential for deterrence of the Kremlin in the Black Sea region. And it is a critical both against ISIS and Iran we need to consider this relationship to be a priority, [but] condone or excuse several mistakes or bad choices about the Turkish Government. There are times are very quiet, but we think long term. The current Turkish administration will eventually change. But the strategically important geography of Turkey will never change. 23:31 Elbridge Colby: Allies and partners are absolutely essential for the United States in a world increasingly defined by great power competition, above all with China. Indeed, they lie at the very heart of the right US strategy for this era, which I believe the Department of Defense's 2018 National Defense Strategy lays out. The importance to the United States of allies and partners is not a platitude, but the contrary. For the first time since the 19th century, the United States is not far and away the world's largest economy. More than anything else, this is due to the rise of China. And that has become very evident. Beijing is increasingly using its growing power for coercive purposes. 24:08 Elbridge Colby: United States faces a range of other potential threats, including primarily from Russia against NATO, as well as from transnational terrorists, Iran and North Korea. In other words, there exists multiple challenges to US national security interests. Given their breadth and scope, America can no longer expect to take care of them essentially alone. Accordingly, we must address this widening shortfall between the threats we face and the resources we have to deal with them by a much greater role for allies and partners. 24:59 Elbridge Colby: Because of China's power and wealth, the United States simply must play a leading role in blocking Beijing's pursuit of hegemony in Asia. This means that the US defense establishment must prioritize dealing with China and Asia and particularly vulnerable allies and partners such as Taiwan and the Philippines. 25:24 Elbridge Colby: In particular, we will not be able to dedicate the level of resources and effort to the Middle East and Europe that we have in the past. We will therefore need allied partners to do their part not just to help defend our interests and enable a concentration on Asia but to defend themselves and their interests. 26:00 Elbridge Colby: The contemporary threats to us interest stem from China across Asia. Transnational terrorists largely in the Middle East, Russia and Eastern Europe, Persian Gulf area and North Korea in Asia. 26:11 Elbridge Colby: Yet the United States is traditional, closest and most significant allies are largely clustered in Western Europe in Northeast Asia. Many of these countries, especially Europe feel quite secure and are little motivated to contribute to more distant threats. This leaves wide areas such as South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East, for which long standing US alliances are of minimal help. The natural way to rectify this is for the United States to add partners and form necessary alliances to help address these gaps. 35:13 Elbridge Colby: In this effort, though, we should be very careful to distinguish between expanding our formal alliances or [?] alliances from expanding our partnerships, the former should be approached derivatively while the latter can be approached more liberally, when we extend an alliance commitment or something tantamount to it as in the case of Taiwan, we tie our credibility to that nation's fate. We should therefore be [cheery] about doings. In light of this, we should seek to expand our partnerships wherever possible. In particular, we should focus on increasing them in South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, where China otherwise might have an open field to [subordances] and add them to its pro hegemonium coalition. 27:41 Elbridge Colby: I do not see a near term need to add any allies to the US roster. But I do think we will increasingly need to consider this as the shadow of Chinese power darkens over the region. 27:53 Elbridge Colby: Our effort to expand our network of allies and partners should really be focused on states with shared threat perceptions. It has become something of a common place that shared values form the bedrock of our alliances. It is true that such values help allies, but the most useful alliances generally proceed from shared fears. The best motivator to fight is self defense. The states that have a shared interest in preventing Chinese or Russian or Iranian hegemony selves have a natural alignment with our own. This is true whether or not they are democracies. 29:00 Elbridge Colby: In Asia, given the scale proposed by Beijing, we should concentrate most of our allies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan on readying to defend themselves alongside US Armed Forces and provide access to US forces in the event of a contingency. 29:16 Elbridge Colby: Meanwhile, we should assist partners like Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, with whatever means available to enable their defense against an ever more powerful China while concurrently seeking greater access and logistics support for US and other allied forces. 29:39 Elbridge Colby: Europe Finally, the overall us goal should be while preserving the fundamental us commitment to NATO's defense to have Europeans especially in northern and eastern Europe shoulder more of the burden of defending the Alliance from Russia assault. The reality is that given the stakes and consequences, the United States must prioritize Asia. United States must therefore economize in its second theater Europe. 35:13 Elbridge Colby: And move away from using these tools as leverage for key partners for domestic political reform or secondary geopolitical objectives. United States should always of course, stand proudly for free government that treats its people with dignity. We must keep our eye on the prize though China is the primary challenge to our interest in the world, including our government, both at home and abroad. Our top priority must therefore be to block its gaining predominance in Asia, which is a very real prospect. This means strengthening states in the region against Chinese power, whether or not they are model democracies. 35:15 Rep. Adam Smith (WA): When we should we just say, look, we're not going to worry about your domestic politics. We want to build the Alliance, however possible. How would we deal with extreme human rights abuses, as are alleged in the Philippines in terms of extra judicial killings, or in the case of India, and of course, we're dealing with this with Turkey and Europe as well, as you know, doing the arm sales with Russia, should we significantly back off on our sort of sanctions policy for those things? And if so, how do we signal that without without undermining our credibility? 40:55 Elbridge Colby: In a sense, what we're going to need to do to leverage this greater power of this network, you know, allies, partners, whatever their role is going to be interoperability, the ability to work to different standards to communicate with each other. That's partially a technical problem and an equipment problem, but a lot of it is human training and an organizational issue. And Taiwan, I think I'm very enthusiastic about the arms sales to Taiwan. And I know that one was recently reported, I hope it goes through because it's the kind of equipment that we want to see this kind of A2AD denial kind of capabilities to Taiwan, but actually, where I think would be really valuable to move forward with. And that's a sensitive issue, but I think this would be within the context of our trade policy would personally be on training, you know, and that's something we could think about with Vietnam as well. Obviously, the Indians have a very sophisticated military, but they're maybe we can offer there too. So I think that's a real sort of force multiplier. 42:00 Rep. Mac Thornberry (TX): Turkeys geography, history, critical role is always going to be important is certainly valid. And yet, not only are there human rights and governance issues, the current leader of Turkey has policies that contradict the, in many ways the best interests of the United States. So, take that specific example. We don't want to make enemies of Turkey forever. But yet, what do we do now? To to preserve that future when there's a different government, but yet make clear or in some way help guide them on a better policy path? 57:50 Christine Wormuth: We need to make adjustments to our posture in the region to be able to better deal with China. And so the announcement by Palau, for example, that it's willing to host US airfields and bases could be quite helpful to us. Even though they're relatively small. We do need to diversify our footprint. 1:24:52 Christine Wormuth: The challenge is that the many of the countries in the indo Pacific don't want to have to choose between the United States and China. They want to engage with China for very clear economic interests, while most of them lean towards the United States for security interests, and I think they're trying to sort of thread that needle. 1:32:07 Christine Wormuth: Turkey is a very challenging geostrategic problem. I was in the Obama administration when we were fighting ISIS, and we knew there was tension between the necessity to have partners on the ground and the Syrian Democratic Forces were what we had. We knew Turkey had issues with that. In my experience, however, the United States worked very hard and very closely with Turkey to try to assuage their concerns and nothing was ever enough for them. So we do have a challenge, they are very important in terms of where they are located, but the authoritarianism that Erdogan has turned to is concerning. So I think we have to keep the dialogue open and continue to try to keep turkey inside the fold, but at the same time, communicate that doing whatever they want is not acceptable. And the the S400 for example, is a key example of that. 1:34:07 Christine Wormuth: AFRICOM’s Zero Based review, I hope will shed light on which kinds of activities are helping us and helping our African partners. 1:35:36 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain all have extensive efforts going on in Africa. So this is an opportunity once again, where we can work with allies to achieve what our objectives are. 1:40:00 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: What for sure brings a lot of military capability air landed forces to the a lot and that if for some reason, you know that it would have to be filled by us or the state or other allied to then that's a problem right? Sorry. But more importantly is control the strokes that can help the blacks in the Mediterranean. And so having a NATO ally has control and sovereignty over the strait we have the mantra. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation, September 22, 2020 Witnesses: Derek Mitchell President of the National Democratic Institute Returned to NDI in September 2018 after leaving in 1997 2012-2016: Former US Ambassador to the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burma) 2011-2012: U.S. Department of State’s first Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma 2009-2011: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs (APSA) 2001-2009: Senior Fellow and Director of the Asia Division of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 1997-2001: Special Assistant for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 1993-1997: Senior Program Officer for Asia and the former Soviet Union at the National Democratic Institute 1986-1988: Foreign policy assistant for Sen. Ted Kennedy Dr. Alyssa Ayres Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations Consultant for the Japan Bank for International Cooperation Senior Advisor for McLarty Associates A global consultant firm "at home in corporate board rooms & government cabinet rooms, anywhere in the world" Member of the United States Institute of Peace 2010-2013: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asia 2008-2010: Founding director of the India and South Asia practice at McLarty Asssociates 2007-2008: Special Assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Daniel Twining President of the International Republican Institute since 2017 Picked by outgoing President, Sen. John McCain 2009-2016: Former director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund 2007-2009: GWB State Department Policy Planning staffer 2001-2004: Foreign Policy Advisor to Sen. John McCain Transcript: 16:12 Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges: Last year I introduced the bipartisan Cambodia democracy act which passed the House overwhelmingly, it would impose sanctions on those in Cambodia responsible for undermining democratic rule of law in the country. We must be especially cognizant of democracies in Asia in danger of backsliding into autocracy, with China's help with their alternative to Western democracies, and that is Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics that is communism, regardless of how they paint it and try to rename it. 21:10 Derek Mitchell: For nearly four decades, my organization, the National Democratic Institute, working alongside our partners at the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy has assisted the spread and institutionalization of democracy around the world. Let me say at the start that we can only do this work thanks to the sustained bipartisan support of Congress, including from this subcommittee. So for that we are truly grateful. 21:50 Derek Mitchell: Today NDI maintains nearly a dozen offices in the Indo-Pacific region. And last week we just received clearance from the Taiwan government to open an office in Taipei, which we will do soon. 30:07 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: Sri Lanka after a five year period of improvement is now moving in the other direction with the return of the Rajapaksa government. The new political configuration will not pursue progress on reconciliation and accountability for the end of the Civil War, and the newly elected parliament is already hard at work, the constitutional amendment to expand presidential powers. 34:21 Daniel Twining: Beyond China the past year has seen countries once viewed as bright spots for democracy like Malaysia and Sri Lanka, regress due to political infighting, personality politics and failure to deliver promised reforms. 1:48:50 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: I do believe that the creation of the DFC is important. It is my understanding that it is not quite up and running 100%. So we have yet to really see what it can do as a potential alternate to these kinds of infrastructure under writings. The other piece of the DFC is that is it in part designed to help crowd in private sector engagement and private sector investments. So that's another part of the story. I think we may need more time before we're able to see how effective this mechanism can be. 1:49:22 Dr. Alyssa Ayres: I would note that we also had another very effective source of US government assistance that depends on, his premise on good governance indicators. And that's the Millennium Challenge Corporation. And I would just caution that in the South Asia region, we have now seen two examples in Nepal and in Sri Lanka, were the long process of engaging toward a Millennium Challenge compact agreement, large investments, about 500 million in each case towards transportation and power infrastructure. These have actually been held up in both of those countries because of political concerns. The Nepali government doesn't want to be part of the US-Indo Pacific strategy or feel that it is somehow being brought into the Indo-Pacific strategy. The Rajapaksa government is suspicious of the US MCC. So I would just offer those two examples of cases where we've got a terrific tool, but it's run into some challenges for political reasons and the countries of concern. 1:50:29 Daniel Twining: Thank you, Congressman, you've been such a leader, including with your Cambodia democracy act. And you know, that's a reminder that we do have the tools and, and leverage. The Europeans in Cambodia have suspended trading privileges that they had offered to Cambodia. Cambodia is very reliant on our GSP still. So some of these economic instruments matter in both a negative sense, but also in a positive sense. When countries do well, we should be working with them on new trade and financial arrangements, the Chinese do come in and do this in their own way. And we should get back to that as a country. Sir, you mentioned, do we withdraw support when a country backslides, on democracy? You know, I would argue that most of our support for country should not go directly to their governments, should go to independent civil society, free media, independent institutions and not just go into a central coffer that disappears. In the past, we've gotten a lot smarter about this as a country, but in the past, a lot of us development assistance disappeared because we were giving it to friendly autocracies in some cases, who did not have any means of accounting for it. So let's make sure that we invest in these democracy and governance instruments because we want to make sure that US taxpayer money is being used well. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Relations, September 17, 2017 Witnesses: Julie Chung Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department Philip T. Reeker 2019 to present: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs 2017-2019: Civilian Deputy to the Commander of the US European Command 2014-2017:Principal Officer and Consul General at the US Consulate General in Milan, Italy 2011-2014: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State fo rEuropean and Eurasian Affairs 2008-2011: US Ambassador to Macedonia 2007-2008: Counselor of Public Affairs at the US Embassy in Iraq 2004-2007: Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Hungary 1999-2004: Spokesman for the US State Dept David R. Stilwell Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department Transcript: 17:44 David R. Stilwell: For years, we in the international community credited Beijing's commitments that facilitating China's entry into the rules based international order would lead to increasing domestic reform and opening. Beijing's persistent flouting of these commitments has shattered those illusions. It is now clear to us and to more and more countries around the world that PRC foreign and security policy seeks to reshape the international environment around the narrow interests and authoritarian values of a single beneficiary. That is the Chinese Communist Party. 22:19 David R. Stilwell: We sincerely appreciate congressional leadership in establishing the new counter China influence fund in fiscal year 2020 Appropriations Bill. This very important provision provides the department with a flexible mechanism that will bolster our efforts to strengthen our partners resiliency to Chinese malign influence worldwide. The initial round of CCIF funding solicitation resulted in over 400 project submissions from around the globe, with demand far outstripping the appropriate funding. 29:57 Philip T. Reeker: By using platforms like the One Belt One Road initiative, the Chinese Communist Party endeavors to create dependencies and cultivate client state relationships through the 17 Plus One initiative which involves 12 countries that are both NATO and EU members primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, China aims to achieve access and ownership over valuable transportation hubs, critical infrastructure, ports and industries. 31:09 Philip T. Reeker: Using authorities granted by legislation members of this committee introduced, as mentioned the bipartisan Build Act and the European Energy Security and Diversification Act, we've been able to begin leveraging the New Development Finance Corporation to try to catalyze key investments in strategic projects. Most notable I'd point to Secretary Pompeo. His pledge at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year of $1 billion, a commitment to the Three Seas Initiative in the Czech Republic which Secretary Pompeo visited just last month, they have transformed from a target of Chinese influence to a leader in the European awakening. 33:29 Philip T. Reeker: Although China's GDP is about eight times the size of Russia's, Russia remains the primary military threat to Europe and the strategic priority for most of our allies and partners, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe. Russia and China are more closely aligned strategically than at any point since the 1950s. And we see growing cooperation across a range of diplomatic, military, economic and information activities. 46:15 Julie Chung: In terms of [cepheus], and investment screening, we have extensive engagements in the region. We have been sending technical delegations to countries in the region to explain how public procurement processes and transparent processes work. We have helped governments build that capacity through the America Crece initiative. We have 10 mo use now signed with countries throughout the region. And that's part of the the tool to use in addressing the corruption issues that China is bringing to the region. How do we ensure the countries have the right tools in place, the practices in place, the procurement practices and regulatory framework to the private sector companies want to come and invest in those countries and ensure they have a level playing field to be working through the America Crece initiative. 47:17 Julie Chung: DFC has been a wonderful tool and resource that we've been able to now utilize more than ever, in from the former OPEX utilities, not expanding that broader base in Latin America and the Caribbean. So DFC in our region has already invested and has pledged to invest $12 billion in just the Western Hemisphere alone, and in Central America, $3 billion. So it's already invested in Central America, in El Salvador, for instance, on an LNG project, and other projects that are forthcoming. 1:17:16 Philip T. Reeker: Three Seas Initiative was developed by countries dozen countries in the Central and Eastern European region to provide alternatives particularly in a north-south direction for trade and infrastructure, and we have stepped in to support the Three Seas not as a member, but as an interested partner. And Secretary Pompeo outlined, as I mentioned, that the development Finance Corporation is offering up to a billion dollars in matching investment funds for opportunities throughout that region. 1:35:00 Julie Chung: Taiwan and the United States are working together in Latin America. So they announced financing to provide SME loan support for Latin American Central American region through the kabe. The Central American Bank of Government Integration. So that's one example of where we're providing that funding into the region. There's also a $26 million loan that DFCS provided to provide telecom towers in Peru and Ecuador 500 telecom towers, and this addresses both our strategic interest as well as a 5G telecommunications interest that where China is trying to take over and really control that that sector. 1:50:29 Julie Chung: In terms of DFC and working on digital authoritarianism, there's no better example in the region then in Maduro's regime, the authoritarian regime of Maduro and working in close concert with China, and China's ZTE has long had a relationship with the Maduro regime and providing the carnet de patria which spies on civil society and opposition leaders and determines how who gets what food allocations within that country. And so right now, of course, we are not engaging in DFC in Venezuela. But in a democratic future. When we have a democratic transition in that country. We would love to bring DFC into it and help rebuild. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, September 15, 2020 Witnesses: Monica de Bolle, PhD Professor of Latin American Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics Senior Advisor with International Capital Strategies (not listed on her hearing bio) Former professor of macroeconomics at the Pontifical Catholic Universtiy of Rio de Janeiro Managing partner of Galanto MBB Consultants, a macroeconomic consultancy firm based in Brazil Former economist at the International Monetary Fund Michael Camilleri Director of the Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program for Inter-American Dialogue Senior Advisor at WestExec Advisors since February 2018 (not listed on his hearing bio) The firm founded by the incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken Former Western Hemisphere adviser on Obama's Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff and Director for Andean Affairs at the National Security Council from 2012-2017 Former human rights specialist at the Organization of American States Former senior staff attorney at the Center for Justice and International Law Member of the Council on Foreign Relations Eric Farnsworth Vice President of the Council of the Americas since 2003 Former Managing Director of ManattJones Global Strategies, a consulting firm from 1998-2005 Former member of the global public policy division of Bristol-Meyers Squibb, a multinational pharmaceutical company Former Senior Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1995-1998 Former Foreign Affairs Officer at the State Department from 1990-1995 Former Services and Investment Industry Analyst at the Office of the US Trade Representatives in 1992 Transcript: 25:10 Rep. Francis Rooney (FL): US international development Finance Corporation will play a crucial role in investments in the region, which I believe can help the recovery and also as long term economic well being 2:08:13 Eric Farnsworth: Notably, Washington is taking actions to build a forward looking economic recovery agenda. Among them the Americas Crece, a program announced at the end of 2019 and enhanced financing facilities through the newly minted Development Finance Corporation. 2:09:21 Eric Farnsworth: Economic Recovery must be at the forefront of the pending summit of the Americas. Latin America already suffers from one of the lowest levels of intra regional trade worldwide, for example. The gains from expanded intra regional trade would establish sounder economic footing while helping to moderate the cyclical nature of commodities markets, as well. Nations across Latin America and the Caribbean can focus more attention on improving their respective investment climates. Mr. Rooney, the ranking minority member has made this case effectively many, many times. For its part, the United States should come to the 2021 summit with a robust economic expansion initiative. Absent a massive economic financial package of debt relief and new lending, renewal of a hemispheric trade and investment agenda will be the best way to promote regional recovery, support US and regional economic interests and renew a regional strategic posture that China has begun to challenge. 2:11:03 Julie Chung: So how does the United States continue to advocate democracy in Venezuela? I say sham of legislative election and the end of Guaido's mandate are rapidly approaching. How do we do that? Well, I don't if know if [inaudible] wanted this question. 2:13:03 Eric Farnsworth: There are huge amounts of illicit money being made and moved in Venezuela through illegal activities, illegal gold mining, drug trafficking and the like. And one of the best ways I think to get at the regime is to stanch the flow of those financial resources. And frankly, to identify and to freeze those funds and then also to begin to seize them and take them back at once the economic incentives for illegal behavior are removed or at least reduced, perhaps the political dynamic in Venezuela will change that people will begin to see that they really have to find a way out from this mess frankly, that Nicolas Maduro has created. 2:14:14 Monica de Bolle, PhD: It will be very hard to get other Latin American countries to focus on the issues in Venezuela given that they have runaway epidemics in their own countries. And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that amongst the 10 countries that have the largest or the highest per capita death rate in the world right now are all in Latin America. 2:16:00 Michael Camilleri: Unfortunately, the Guaido interim government, the the National Assembly, the G4 are not in the same position they were in a year or your half ago, the balance of forces on the ground in Venezuela has tilted in favor of the Maduro regime. And so that will that will require us to calibrate our own efforts and invite view we need to be realistic about the fact that some sort of negotiated pathway to free and fair elections ultimately is the most realistic and the most peaceful, frankly, path out of the the awful situation that the country finds itself in. 2:23:21 Monica de Bolle, PhD: Apart from corruption, which is certainly a problem in the oil sector as well as in other parts of the Venezuelan economy, there's also been dramatic underinvestment in the oil industry, which has now led the country to this situation where, rather than being a very big net oil exporter, as they used to be in the 1980s in the 1990s, they've now become a net oil importer, which shows exactly how much you can squander your country's resources and just basically run an economy to the ground. 2:33:58 Eric Farnsworth: And what we're seeing is some concern in the investor community about actions that have been taken perhaps on the backtracking on the reform agenda around energy in particular, but in other sectors as well, canceling contracts that have been previously agreed, and some other actions like that and the investment community is very cautious. Hearing: , Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment, September 10, 2020 Witnesses: Douglas Rutzen President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law Professor at Georgetown University Law Center Advisory Board member of the United Nations Democracy Fund Therese Pearce Laanela Head of Electoral Processes at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Joanna Rohozinska Resident Program Director for Europe at the Beacon Project at the International Republican Institute Senior program officer for Europe at the National Endowment for Democracy at least as of 2019. She has worked there for about a decade Jamie Fly Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and Co-Director of the Alliance for Security Democracy Senior Advisor to WestExec Advisors Co-founded by incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken Former President and CEO of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in 2019 & 2020 Former counselor for foreign and national security affairs for Sen. Marco Rubio from 2013-2017 Former Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative from 2009-2013 Former member of GWB's National Security Council from 2008-2009 Former member of GWB's Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2008 Transcript: 53:30 Joanna Rohozinska: Lukshenko must be held responsible for his choices and actions. Word mating strategies with transatlantic allies should be priority and to call for dialogue, immediate release of political prisoners and support for the political opposition's demands for holding elections under international supervision and beginning negotiations on a Lukshenko transition. 53:56 Joanna Rohozinska: Support for democracy requires patience as well as long term commitment and vision. This has been made possible with the support of Congress to IRI and the family. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 1:03:05 Therese Pearce Laanela: Institutions that are as strong...What we are seeing... those that are able to safeguard and against disinformation for example, they are working in innovative ways because this isn't a challenge that existed really as much before social media and one of the things that we're seeing is a kind of interagency cooperation, a partnership between private and public. That's really hasn't been seen before. Let me just take Australia as a case, but the working together with social media companies and government agencies and security agencies and election officials for rapid reaction to anything that comes in and that kind of seamless communication between agencies, that is one of the ways in which we can protect. 1:04:15 Jamie Fly: We have tools. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty has a Bella Russian language service Radio Svoboda which has significant of followers inside Belarus. The problem is that Lukashenko like many other authoritarians have realized that when they face significant pressure, they should take the country offline. And Belarusian authorities have done that on a regular basis, which makes it much more difficult to communicate and allow information to spread freely. So what they really need outlets like Svoboda and other independent media are access to internet circumvention tools, which are also funded by the State Department and the US Agency for Global Media. 1:09:57 Douglas Rutzen: China is providing surveillance technology to countries including Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Serbia. They also provided a $2 billion dollar loan to Hungry to construct a railway which Hungry then classified as a state secret in terms of the construction. 1:19:28 Brian Fitzpatrick: In 2013, in 2000, and he saw large scale protests in Ukraine, following what many believed to be a falsification of elections by their federal officials. So my first question for the entire panel, do you believe that Belarus protests could lead to a revolution similar to the one we saw in Ukraine and secondarily, on Tuesday, President Lukashenko, refused to rule out the idea of holding new elections, and acknowledge that he may have overstayed his time at office, whether or not you see revolutions similar to Ukraine, do you think that these protests could lead to an actual change in leadership? Joanna Rohozinska: So I take it as a question to me. I mean, I think that things have been building up and I would say that with this similarity to Ukraine was that there was also a deep seated frustration with corruption. Here, it's less about corruption. But it's still meets, where you have the accountability and transparency aspect of it that I was mentioning in my testimony. And I think that the frustration with the lack of responsive government and being treated like animals, frankly, is what they say, is what finally boiled over, but there's been, there's been an uptick in protests in Belarus, if you watch these kinds of things over the past two years, over the parasite tax, for example, which was also was a special tax that was put on unemployment, and on to penalize people who are unemployed, is trying to target civic activists, but it ended up reaching far farther than that. So you can see things percolating below the surface for quite a long time. Now. You never know when it's going to blow. Here, I think that there was just the COVID, underlay everything and it mobilized such a broad swath of society, that the trigger event was finally the elections, which again, demonstrating a degree of hubris they decided not to put off right, they figured that holding the elections at the beginning of August was the best thing to do, because there is always a low torque turnout and all this, frankly, because people tend to go out to the countryside. So they simply miscalculated. They did not understand how the people were feeling. And here, you do have a similarity with Ukraine, I think. And in terms of in terms of the other questions to going forward? No, you have to appreciate that this is a country that's never experienced democracy ever. Which means that even the democratic opposition leaders basically know it from textbooks, they don't know what from firsthand practice. And, Lukashenko himself, ironically, has been supporting the notion of sovereignty and independence in the face of the Russian state for the past couple of years. And he only changed his tune a couple of weeks ago, when he started getting backed into a corner. And in terms of, you know, his promises and calling new elections, I would be wary. He does not have a particularly good track record of following through on promises. And so I would probably take that as a lesson learned and be extremely cautious. I personally think he's just buying time. Because he also said that he would consider holding the elections after introducing constitutional changes and the constitutional changes that he's proposing is to introduce term limits. So I mean, he's still looking at the succession. He understands that this is the end of his time in office. I don't know if he wants to do that right, exactly now, however, understanding that this would have been his last term anyways, you're probably preparing for an exit strategy. 1:23:00 Joanna Rohozinska: I would certainly invest in looking at quality early parliamentary elections as being much more significant. Because once you turn the house, once you turn the parliament and then at least you start building up a degree of political capital that can start carrying forward into into the governance. 1:52:37 Therese Pearce Laanela: Your people are excellent. I really want to say that I'm calling in from Sweden. I'm not American myself. But I have worked in this business for 28 years working in different countries in really tough situations. And some of the best experts out there are from organizations that are very close to those of you when you're normally working in Washington. So the United Nations as well based in New York, but also organizations like IFIS, NDI, our colleagues from IRI they are doing excellent work supported by USA ID. So and they've kind of got it figured out how to support institutions for the long term, so you can trust the people that you are supporting. Hearing: , House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, July 1, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Tanvi Madan – Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution Dr. Evan Medeiros – Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies and Cling Family Distinguished Fellow, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Mr. Orville Schell – Arthur Ross Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society Ms. Meredith Sumpter 2020 October: Hired as the CEO of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican 2017-2020: Head of Research Strategy and Operations, Eurasia Group 2014-2016: Director at multinational consulting firm BowerGroup Asia Transcript: 55:45 Ms. Meredith Sumpter: Beijing decision makers believe that their state directed economic system is the foundation of the livelihood of their political system. In other words, we have been spending our energies trying to force China to change and China is not willing to change an economic model that it believes underpins its political longevity. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD224: Social Media Censorship

30 november 2020 | 85 min

Everyone who uses Facebook, Google, and Twitter has probably noticed the disappearance of posts and the appearance of labels, especially during the 2020 election season. In this episode, hear the highlights from six recent House and Senate hearings where executives from the social media giants and experts on social media testified about the recent changes. The incoming 117th Congress is promising to make new laws that will affect our social media experiences; these conversations are where the new laws are being conceived. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes The Mueller Report National Endowment for Democracy Articles/Documents Article: WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, November 24, 2020 Article: By Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 16, 2020 Article: By Glenn Greenwald, November 12, 2020 Article: Facebook, November 3, 2020 Article: By Kaelyn Forde and Patricia Sabga, Aljazeera, October 30, 2020 Article: By Elliot Harmon and Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 29, 2020 Article: , by Matt Taibbi, TK News, October 24, 2020 Article: The Washington Post, October 20, 2020 Article: , by Kevin Johnson, USA Today, October 19, 2020 Article: By Natasha Lomas, Tech Crunch, October 16, 2020 Article: By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, New York Post, October 14, 2020 Article: By Sophia Bernazzani, HubSpot, May 3, 2020 Article: By Josh Constine, TechCrunch, March 28, 2019 Article: SFS, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, June 21, 2016 Article: By Brian Boland, Facebook for Business, June 5, 2014 Article: The Washington Post, October 4, 2013 Additional Resources General Guidelines and policies: , Twitter, October 2020 Facebook Business Facebook Business , IFCN Code of Principles , Electronic Frontier Foundation Mission Statement: Open Markets News Media Alliance News Corp Foreign Policy Research Institute Foreign Policy Research Institute Wicszipedia Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, November 17, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: 30:50 Jack Dorsey: We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against New York Post, based on a policy we created in 2018. To prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials. This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a New York Post article, publicly or privately. We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread. Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours. We informed the New York Post of our air and policy update and how to unlock their account by deleting the original violating tweet, which freed them to tweet the exact same content and news article again. They chose not to, instead insisting we reverse our enforcement action. We do not have a practice around retro actively overturning prior enforcement's, since then it demonstrated that we needed one and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate. 35:13 Mark Zuckerberg: At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this election very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them. We built sophisticated systems to protect against election interference, that combined artificial intelligence, significant human review, and partnerships with the intelligence community, law enforcement and other tech platforms. We've taken down more than 100 networks of bad actors, we're trying to coordinate and interfere globally, we established a network of independent fact checkers that covers more than 60 languages. We made political advertising more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else, and including TV, radio and email. And we introduced new policies to combat voter suppression and misinformation. Still, the pandemic created new challenges, how to handle misinformation about COVID and voting by mail, how to prepare people for the reality, the results would take time, and how to handle if someone prematurely declared victory or refused to accept the result. So in September, we updated our policies again to reflect these realities of voting in 2020. And make sure that we were taking precautions given these unique circumstances. We worked with local election officials to remove false claims about polling conditions that might lead to voter suppression. We partnered with Reuters and the national election pool to provide reliable information about results. We attach voting information to posts by candidates on both sides and additional contexts to posts trying to de legitimize the outcome. We lock down new political ads and the week before the election to prevent misleading claims from spreading when they couldn't be rebutted. We strengthened our enforcement against militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon to prevent them from using our platforms to organize violence or civil unrest altogether. I believe this was the largest election integrity effort by any private company in recent times. 40:50 Jack Dorsey: We have transparency around our policies, we do not have transparency around how we operate content moderation, the rationale behind it, the reasoning. And as we look forward, we have more and more of our decisions of our operations moving to algorithms, which are, have a difficult time explaining why they make decisions, bringing transparency around those decisions. And that is why we believe that we should have more choice in how these algorithms are applied to our content, whether we use them at all so we can turn them on or off and have clarity around the outcomes that they're projecting and how they affect our experience. 45:39 Mark Zuckerberg: We work with a number of independent organizations that are accredited by the Poynter Institute. And they include Reuters, the Associated Press. AJans France presse, United States, USA Today, factcheck.org, Science Feedback, PolitiFact, Check Your Fact, Leadstories and the Dispatch in the United States. 48:54 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do both of you support change to 230? Reform of Section 230? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator I do. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Thank you. 54:10 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): How many times is Steve Bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as you say, the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down. Having a content violation does not automatically mean your account gets taken down. And the number of strikes varies depending on the amount and type of offense. So if people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content, then the first time they do it, then we will take down their account. For other things. It's multiple, I'd be happy to follow up afterwards. We try not to disclose these... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Will you commit to taking down that account? Steve Bannon? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, that's not what our policies would suggest that we should do in this case. 1:07:05 Jack Dorsey: What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it. So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service, and ultimately trust it. Sen. John Cornyn (TX): So it was a business decision. Jack Dorsey: It was a business decision. 2:56:34 Mark Zuckerberg: We do coordinate on and share signals on security related topics. So for example, if there is signal around a terrorist attack or around child exploitation imagery or around a foreign government, creating an influence operation, that is an area where the companies do share signals about what they see. But I think it's important to be very clear that that is distinct from the content moderation policies that we or the other companies have, where once we share intelligence or signals between the companies, each company makes its own assessment of the right way to address and deal with that information. 3:59:10 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I don't know what it what are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump's use of your platforms after he stops being president it? Will he still be deemed newsworthy? And will he still get to use your platform to spread this misinformation? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, let me clarify my last answer. We are also having academic study, the effective of all of our election measures and they'll be publishing those results publicly. In terms of President Trump and moving forward. There are a small number of policies where we have exceptions for politicians under the principle that people should be able to hear what their elected officials are saying and candidates for office. But by and large, the vast majority of our policies have no newsworthiness or political exception. So if the President or anyone else is spreading hate speech, or inciting violence, or posting content, that delegitimizes the election or valid forms of voting, those will receive the same treatment is anyone else saying those things, and that will continue to be the case Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Remains to be seen. Jack Dorsey: So we do have a policy around public interest, where for global leaders, we do make exceptions in terms of whether if a tweet violates our terms of service, we leave it up behind an interstitial, and people are not allowed to share that more broadly. So a lot of the sharing is disabled with the exception of quoting it so that you can add your own conversation on top of it. So if an account suddenly becomes, is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away. 4:29:35 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN): Do you believe it's Facebook's duty to comply with state sponsored censorship so it can keep operating doing business and selling ads in that country? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator in general, we try to comply with the laws in every country where we operate and do business. Hearing: , Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, October 28, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: 10:10 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): In policing, conservative sites, then its own YouTube platform or the same types of offensive and outrageous claims. 45:50 Jack Dorsey: The goal of our labeling is to provide more context to connect the dots so that people can have more information so they can make decisions for themselves. 46:20 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): I have a tweet here from Mr. Ajit Pai. Mr. Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. And he recounts some four tweets by the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which Twitter did not place a public label on. They all four of them glorify violence. The first tweet says this and I quote each time 'the Zionist regime is a deadly cancerous growth and a detriment to the region, it will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.' That's the first tweet. The second tweet 'The only remedy until the removal of the Zionist regime is firm armed resistance,' again, left up without comment by Twitter. The third 'the struggle to free Palestine is jihad in the way of God.' I quote that in part for the sake of time, and number four, 'we will support and assist any nation or any group anywhere who opposes and fights the Zionist regime.' I would simply point out that these tweets are still up, Mr. Dorsey. And how is it that they are acceptable to be to be there? Alan, I'll ask unanimous consent to enter this tweet from Ajit Pai in the record at this point that'll be done. Without objection. How Mr. Dorsey, is that acceptable based on your policies at Twitter? Jack Dorsey: We believe it's important for everyone to hear from global leaders and we have policies around world leaders. We want to make sure that we are respecting their right to speak and to publish what they need. But if there's a violation of our terms of service, we want to label it and... Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): They're still up, did they violate your terms of service? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We did not find those two violate our terms of service because we consider them saber rattling, which is, is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. Speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. 59:20 Jack Dorsey: We don't have a policy against misinformation. We have a policy against misinformation in three categories, which are manipulated media, public health, specifically COVID and civic integrity, election interference and voter suppression. 1:39:05 Sen. Brian Schatz (HI): What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate, by making sure that they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election. To our witnesses today, you and other tech leaders need to stand up to this immoral behavior. The truth is that because some of my colleagues accuse you, your companies and your employees of being biased or liberal, you have institutionally bent over backwards and over compensated, you've hired republican operatives, hosted private dinners with Republican leaders, and in contravention of your Terms of Service, given special dispensation to right wing voices, and even throttled progressive journalism. Simply put, the republicans have been successful in this play. 1:47:15 Jack Dorsey: This one is a tough one to actually bring transparency to. Explainability in AI is a field of research but is far out. And I think a better opportunity is giving people more choice around the algorithms they use, including to turn off the algorithms completely which is what we're attempting to do. 2:15:00 Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): Whatever the numbers are you indicate that they are significant. It's a enormous amount of money and an enormous amount of employee time, contract labor time in dealing with modification of content. These efforts are expensive. And I would highlight for my colleagues on the committee that they will not be any less expensive, perhaps less than scale, but not less in cost for startups and small businesses. And as we develop our policies in regard to this topic, I want to make certain that entrepreneurship, startup businesses and small business are considered in what it would cost in their efforts to meet the kind of standards to operate in a sphere. 2:20:40 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. 3:04:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Between the censorship of conservative and liberal points of view, and it's an enormous disparity. Now you have the right, I want to be very clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and to make decisions about violations. But given the disparate impact of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems that you're either one not enforcing your Terms of Service equally, or alternatively, to that you're writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. 3:15:30 Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Okay for both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey who censored New York Post stories, or throttled them back, did either one of you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation? Or that those emails aren't authentic? Did anybody have any information whatsoever? They're not authentic more than they are Russian disinformation? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We don't. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): So why would you censor it? Why did you prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas, and particularly true ideas... Jack Dorsey: we believe to fell afoul of our hacking materials policy, we judged... Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): They weren't hacked. Jack Dorsey: We we judge them moment that it looked like it was hacked material. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): You were wrong. Jack Dorsey: And we updated our policy and our enforcement within 24 hours. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Mr. Zuckerberg? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Why did you throttle it back. Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. And to be clear on this, we didn't censor the content. We flagged it for fact checkers to review. And pending that review, we temporarily constrained its distribution to make sure that it didn't spread wildly while it was being reviewed. But it's not up to us either to determine whether it's Russian interference, nor whether it's true. We rely on the fact checkers to do that. 3:29:30 Sen. Rick Scott (FL): That's becoming obvious that your that your companies are unfairly targeting conservatives. That's clearly the perception today, Facebook is actively targeting as by conservative groups ahead of the election, either removing the ads completely or adding their own disclosure if they claim that didn't pass their fact check system. 3:32:40 Sen. Rick Scott (FL): You can't just pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on your platform an expect to keep immunity granted by Section 230. News Clip: , CNN, Twitter, October 16, 2020 Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, October 15, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Joan Donovan: Research Director at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School Nina Jankowicz: Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center Cindy Otis: Vice President of the Althea Group Melanie Smith: Head of Analysis, Graphika Inc Transcript: 41:30 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): And I should acknowledge that we're pretty careful. We understand that we shouldn't be in the business of fighting misinformation that's probably inconsistent with the First Amendment. So what do we do? We ask that it be outsourced to people that we otherwise are pretty critical of like Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey, we say you do it, which strikes me as a pretty lame way to address what may or may not be a problem. 42:00 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Miss Jankowicz said that misinformation is dismantling democracy. I'm skeptical of that. And that will be my question. What evidence is that is out there that this is dismantling democracy, I don't mean that millions of people see QAnon I actually want to see the evidence that people are seeing this information, and are in a meaningful way, in a material way, dismantling our democracy through violence or through political organizations, because if we're going to go down that path, I need something more than eyeballs. So I need some evidence for how this is dismantling our democracy. And secondly, if you persuade me that we're dismantling our democracy, how do we get in the business of figuring out who should define what misinformation or disinformation is? Nina Jankowicz: To address your first question related to evidence of the dismantling of democracy. There's two news stories that I think point to this from the last couple of weeks alone. The first is related to the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the social media platforms played a huge role in allowing that group to organize. It allowed, that group to, it ceded the information that led them to organize and frankly, as a woman online who has been getting harassed a lot lately, lately, with sexualized and gender disinformation, I am very acutely aware of how those threats that are online can transfer on to real world violence. And that make no mistake is meant to keep women and minorities from not only participating in the democratic process by exercising our votes, but also keeping us from public life. So that's one big example. But there was another example just recently from a channel for in the UK documentary that looked at how the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica data to selectively target black voters with voter suppression ads during the 2016 election. Again, this is it's affecting people's participation. It's not just about fake news, stories on the internet. In fact, a lot of the best disinformation is grounded in a kernel of truth. And in my written testimony, I go through a couple of other examples of how online action has led to real world action. And this isn't something that is just staying on the internet, it is increasingly in real life. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I don't have a lot of time. Do you think that both examples that you offered up Gov the plot to kidnap governor, the governor of Michigan, and your other example passed the but for test? I mean, this country probably got into the Spanish American War over 130 years ago because of the good works of William Randolph Hearst. So how do we, we've had misinformation and yellow journalism and terrible media and voter suppression forever. And I understand that these media platforms have scale that William Randolph Hearst didn't have. But are you sure that both of those examples pass the buck for they wouldn't have happened without the social media misinformation? Nina Jankowicz: I believe they do, because they allow the organization of these groups without any oversight, and they allow the targeting the targeting of these messages to the groups and people that are going to find the most vulnerable and are most likely to take action against them. And that's what our foreign adversaries do. And increasingly, it's what people within our own country are using to organize violence against the democratic participation of many of our fellow citizens. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Okay, well, I'm out of time I would love to continue this conversation and pursue what you mean by groups being formed quote, without oversight, that's language I'd like to better understand but I'm out of time, but I would like to continue this conversation into, well, if this is the problem that you say it is, what do we actually do about it? Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, July 16, 2020 Witnesses: Adam Cohen: Director of Economic Policy at Google Matt Perault: Head of Global Policy Development at Facebook Nate Sutton: Associate General Counsel for Competition at Amazon Kyle Andeer: Vice President for Corporate Law at Apple Timothy Wu: Julius Silver Professor of Law at Columbia Law School Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale School of Management Stacy Mitchell: Co-Director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Maureen Ohlhausen: Partner at Baker Botts LLP Carl Szabo: Vice President and Gneral Counsel at NetChoice Morgan Reed: Executive Director at the App Association Transcript: 55:15 Adam Cohen: Congresswoman we use a combination of automated tools, we can recognize copyrighted material that creators upload and instantaneously discover it and keep it from being seen on our platforms. 1:16:00 Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Do you use consumer data to favor Amazon products? Because before you answer that, analysts estimate that between 80 and 90% of sales go to the Amazon buy box. So you collect all this data about the most popular products where they're selling. And you're saying you don't use that in any way to change an algorithm to support the sale of Amazon branded products? Nate Sutton: Our algorithms such as the buy box is aimed to predict what customers want to buy, apply the same criteria whether you're a third party seller, or Amazon to that because we want customers to make the right purchase, regardless of whether it's a seller or Amazon. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): But the best purchase to you as an Amazon product. Nate Sutton: No, that's not true. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): So you're telling us you're under oath, Amazon does not use any of that data collected with respect to what is selling, where it's on what products to inform the decisions you make, or to change algorithms to direct people to Amazon products and prioritize Amazon and D prioritize competitors. Nate Sutton: The algorithms are optimized to predict what customers want to buy regardless of the seller. We provide this same criteria and with respect to popularity, that's public data on each product page. We provide the ranking of each product. 3:22:50 Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: As is detailed in the report that I submitted as my testimony, there are a number of characteristics of platforms that tend to drive them toward concentrated markets, very large economies of scale, consumers exacerbate this with their behavioral biases, we don't scroll down to the second page, we don't. We accept default, we follow the framing the platform gives us and instead of searching independently, and what that does is it makes it very hard for small companies to grow and for new ones to get traction against the dominant platform. And without the threat of entry from entrepreneurs and growth from existing competitors, the dominant platform doesn't have to compete as hard. If it's not competing as hard, then there are several harms that follow from that. One is higher prices for advertisers, many of these platforms are advertising supported, then there's higher prices to consumers who may think that they're getting a good deal by paying a price of zero. But the competitive price might well be negative, the consumers might well be able to be paid for using these platforms in a competitive market. Other harms include low quality in the form of less privacy, more advertising and more exploitative content that consumers can't avoid. Because, as Tim just said, there isn't anywhere else to go. And lastly, without competitive pressure, innovation is lessened. And in particular, it's channeled in the direction the dominant firm prefers, rather than being creatively spread across directions chosen by entrance. And this is what we learned both from at&t and IBM and Microsoft, is that when the dominant firm ceases to control innovation, there's a flowering and it's very creative and market driven. So the solution to this problem of insufficient competition is complimentary steps forward in both antitrust and regulation. Antitrust must recalibrate the balance it strikes between the risk of over enforcement and under enforcement. The evidence now shows we've been under enforcing for years and consumers have been harmed. 3:22:50 Stacy Mitchell: I hope the committee will consider several policy tools as part of this investigation. In particular, we very much endorse the approach that Congress took with regard to the railroads, that if you operate essential infrastructure, you can't also compete with the businesses that rely on that infrastructure. 3:45:00 Morgan Reed: Here on the table, I have a copy of Omni page Pro. This was a software you bought, if you needed to scan documents. If you wanted to turn it into a processor and you could look at it in a word processor. I've also got this great review from PC World, they loved it back in 2005. But the important fact here in this review is that it says the street price of this software in 2005 was $450. Now, right here, I've got an app from a company called Readdle, that is nearly the same product level has a bunch of features that this one doesn't, it's $6. Basically now consumers pay less than 1% of what they used to pay for some of the same capability. And what's even better about that, even though I love the product from Readdle, there are dozens of competitors in the app space. So when you look at it from that perspective, consumers are getting a huge win. How have platforms made this radical drop in price possible? Simply put, they've provided three things a trusted space, reduced overhead, and given my developers nearly instant access to a global marketplace with billions of customers, before the platforms to get your software onto a retail store shelf. companies had to spend years and thousands of dollars to get to the point where a distributor would handle their product, then you'd agree agree to a cut of sales revenue, write a check for upfront marketing, agree to refund the distributor the cost of any unsold boxes and then spend 10s of thousands of dollars to buy an end cap. Digging a little bit on this, I don't know how many of you know or aware that the products you see on your store shelf or in the Sunday flyer aren't there because the manager thought it was a cool product. Those products are displayed at the end of an aisle or end cap because the software developer or consumer goods company literally pays for the shelf space. In fact, for many retailers the sale of floor the sale of floor space and flyers makes a huge chunk of their profitability for their store. And none of this takes into consideration printing boxes, manuals, CDs, dealing with credit cards if you go direct translation services, customs authorities if you want to sell abroad in the 1990s it cost a million dollars to start up a software company. Now it's $100,000 in sweat equity. And thanks to these changes, the average cost for consumer software has dropped from $50 to three. For developers. Our cost to market has dropped enormously and the size of our market has expanded globally. 3:48:55 Stacy Mitchell: I've spent a lot of time interviewing and talking with independent retailers, manufacturers of all sizes. Many of them are very much afraid of speaking out publicly because they fear retaliation. But what we consistently hear is that Amazon is the biggest threat to their businesses. We just did a survey of about 550 independent retailers nationally, Amazon ranked number one in terms of being what they said was the biggest threat to their business above, rising healthcare costs, access to capital, government, red tape, anything else you can name. Among those who are actually selling on the platform, only 7% reported that it was actually helping their bottom line. Amazon has a kind of godlike view of a growing share of our commerce and it uses the data that it gathers to advantage its own business and its own business interests in lots of ways. A lot of this, as I said, comes from the kind of leverage its ability to sort of leverage the interplay between these different business lines to maximize its advantage, whether it's promoting its own product because that's lucrative or whether it's using the manufacturer of a product to actually squeeze a seller or vendor into giving it bigger discounts. [3:53:15] Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND): When we recognize, I come from very rural area, the closest, what you would consider a big box store is Minneapolis or Denver. So and so when we're talking about competition, all of this I also think we've got to remember, at no point in time from my house in Dickinson, North Dakota have I had more access to more diverse and cheap consumer products. I mean, things that often would require a plane ticket or a nine hour car ride to buy can now be brought to our house. So I think when we're talking about consumers, we need to remember that side of it, too. Hearing: , Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 18, 2020 Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher: Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles: Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado: Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google Transcript: 19:16 Nathaniel Gleicher: Facebook has made significant investments to help protect the integrity of elections. We now have more than 35,000 people working on safety and security across the company, with nearly 40 teams focused specifically on elections and election integrity. We're also partnering with federal and state governments, other tech companies, researchers and civil society groups to share information and stop malicious actors. Over the past three years, we've worked to protect more than 200 elections around the world. We've learned lessons from each of these, and we're applying these lessons to protect the 2020 election in November. 21:58 Nathaniel Gleicher: We've also been proactively hunting for bad actors trying to interfere with the important discussions about injustice and inequality happening around our nation. As part of this effort, we've removed isolated accounts seeking to impersonate activists, and two networks of accounts tied to organize hate groups that we've previously banned from our platforms. 26:05 Nick Pickles: Firstly, Twitter shouldn't determine the truthfulness of tweets. And secondly, Twitter should provide context to help people make up their own minds in cases where the substance of a tweet is disputed. 26:15 Nick Pickles: We prioritize interventions regarding misinformation based on the highest potential for harm. And the currently focused on three main areas of content, synthetic & manipulated media, elections and civic integrity and COVID-19. 26:30 Nick Pickles: Where content does not break our rules and warrant removal. In these three areas, we may label tweets to help people come to their own views by providing additional context. These labels may link to a curated set of tweets posted by people on Twitter. This include factual statements, counterpoint opinions and perspectives, and ongoing public conversation around the issue. To date, we've applied these labels to thousands of tweets around the world across these three policy areas. 31:10 Richard Salgado: In search, ranking algorithms are an important tool in our fight against disinformation. Ranking elevates information that our algorithms determine is the most authoritative, above information that may be less reliable. Similarly, our work on YouTube focuses on identifying and removing content that violates our policies and elevating authoritative content when users search for breaking news. At the same time, we find and limit the spread of borderline content that comes close but just stops short of violating our policies. 53:28 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Gliecher, you may or may not know that Facebook is headquartered in my congressional district. I've had many conversations with Sheryl Sandberg. And I'm still puzzled by the fact that Facebook does not consider itself a media platform. Are you still espousing that kind of position? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, we're first and foremost a technology company. We may be a technology company, but it's your technology company is being used as a media platform. Do you not recognize that? Congresswoman, we're a place for ideas across the spectrum. We know that there are people who use our platforms to engage and in fact that is the goal of the platform's to encourage and enable people to discuss the key issues of the day and to talk to family and friends. 54:30 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): How long or or maybe I should ask this when there was a video of Speaker Pelosi that had been tampered with - slowed down to make her look like she was drunk. YouTube took it down almost immediately. What did Facebook do and what went into your thinking to keep it up? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman for a piece of content like that, we work with a network of third party fact checkers, more than 60 3rd party fact checkers around the world. If one of them determines that a piece of content like that is false, and we will down rank it, and we will put an interstitial on it so that anyone who would look at it would first see a label over it saying that there's additional information and that it's false. That's what we did in this context. When we down rank, something like that, we see the shares of that video, radically drop. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But you won't take it down when you know it's false. Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, you're highlighting a really difficult balance. And we've talked about this amongst ourselves quite a bit. And what I would say is, if we simply take a piece of content like this down, it doesn't go away. It will exist elsewhere on the internet. People who weren't looking for it will still find it. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But it you know, there will always be bad actors in the world. That doesn't mean that you don't do your level best to show the greatest deal of credibility. I mean, if YouTube took it down, I don't understand how you couldn't have taken down but I'll leave that where it lays. 1:40:10 Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. 1:43:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I tend to be kind of a First Amendment absolutist. I really don't want Facebook telling me what's true and what's not true mainly because most statements are some combination of both. 1:44:20 Nathaniel Gleicher: Certainly people are drawn to clickbait. They're drawn to explosive content. I mean, it is the nature of clickbait, to make people want to click on it, but what we found is that if you separate it out from the particular content, people don't want a platform or experience, just clickbait, they will click it, if they see it, they don't want it prioritized, they don't want their time to be drawn into that and all emotional frailty. And so we are trying to build an environment where that isn't the focus, where they have the conversations they want to have, but I agree with you. A core piece of this challenge is people seek out that type of content wherever it is. I should note that as we're thinking about how we prioritize this, one of the key factors is who your friends are the pages and accounts that you follow and the assets that you engage with. That's the most important factor in sort of what you see. And so people have direct control over that because they are choosing the people they want to engage. Hearing: , Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, June 11, 2020 Witnesses: David Chavern: President of the News Media Alliance Gene Kimmelman: President of Public Knowledge Sally Hubbard: Director of Enforcement Strategy at the Open Markets Institute Matthew Schrurers: Vice President of Law and Policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association David Pitofsky: General Counsel at News Corp Kevin Riley: Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Transcript: 55:30 David Chavern: Platforms and news organizations mutual reliance would not be a problem, if not for the fact that the concentration among the platforms means a small number of companies now exercise an extreme level of control over the news. And in fact, a couple of dominant firms act as regulators of the news industry. Only these regulators are not constrained by legislative or democratic oversight. The result has been to siphon revenue away from news publishers. This trend is clear if you compare the growth in Google's total advertising revenue to the decline in the news industry's ad revenue. In 2000, Google's US revenue was 2.1 billion, while the newspaper industry accounted for 48 billion in advertising revenue. In 2017, in contrast, Google's US revenue had increased over 25 times to 52.4 billion, the newspaper industry's ad revenue had fallen 65% to 16.4 billion. 56:26 David Chavern: The effect of this revenue decline in publishers has been terrible, and they've been forced to cut back on their investments in journalism. That is a reason why newsroom employment has fallen nearly a quarter over the last decade. One question might be asked is if the platforms are unbalanced, having such a negative impact on the news media, then why don't publishers do something about it? The answer is they cannot, at least under the existing antitrust laws, news publishers face a collective action problem. No publisher on its own can stand up to the tech giants. The risk of demotion or exclusion from the platform is simply too great. And the antitrust laws prevent news organizations from acting collectively. So the result is that publishers are forced to accept whatever terms or restrictions are imposed on them. 1:06:20 Sally Hubbard: Facebook has repeatedly acquired rivals, including Instagram and WhatsApp. And Google's acquisition cemented its market power throughout the ad ecosystem as it bought up the digital ad market spoke by spoke, including applied semantics AdMob and Double Click. Together Facebook and Google have bought 150 companies in just the last six years. Google alone has bought nearly 250 companies. 1:14:17 David Pitofsky: Unfortunately, in the news business, free riding by dominant online platforms, which aggregate and then reserve our content has led to the lion's share of online advertising dollars generated off the back of news going to the platforms. Many in Silicon Valley dismissed the press as old media failing to evolve in the face of online competition. But this is wrong. We're not losing business to an innovator who has found a better or more efficient way to report and investigate the news. We're losing business because the dominant platforms deploy our news content, to target our audiences to then turn around and sell that audience to the same advertisers we're trying to serve. 1:15:04 David Pitofsky: The erosion of advertising revenue undercuts our ability to invest in high quality journalism. Meanwhile, the platforms have little if any commitment to accuracy or reliability. For them, a news article is valuable if viral, not if verified. 1:16:12 David Pitofsky: News publishers have no good options to respond to these challenges. Any publisher that tried to withhold its content from a platform as part of a negotiating strategy would starve itself of reader traffic. In contrast, losing one publisher would not harm the platform's at all since they would have ample alternative sources for news content. 1:36:56 Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): So Miss Hubbard, let me start with you. You were an Assistant Attorney General for New York State's antitrust division. You've also worked as a journalist, which online platforms would you say are most impacting the public's access to trustworthy sources of journalism? And why? Sally Hubbard: Thank you for the question. Congresswoman, I think in terms of disinformation, the platforms that are having the most impact are Facebook and YouTube. And that's because of their business models, which are to prioritize engagement, engaging content because of the human nature that you know survival instinct, we tend to tune into things that make us fearful or angry. And so by prioritizing engagement, these platforms are actually prioritizing disinformation as well. It serves their profit motives to keep people on the platforms as long as possible to show them ads and collect their data. And because they don't have any competition, they're free to pursue these destructive business models without having any competitive constraint. They've also lacked regulation. Normally, corporations are not permitted to just pursue profits without regard to the consequences. 1:38:10 Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly declined to interfere, as Facebook and Google have acquired would be competitors. Since 2007, Google has acquired Applied Semantics, Double Click and AdMob. And since 2011, Facebook has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. What do these acquisitions mean for consumers of news and information? I think sometimes antitrust is seen and regulation is seen as something that's out there. But this has very direct impact for consumers. Can you explain what that means as these companies have acquired more and more? Sally Hubbard: Sure, so in my view, those, of all of the acquisitions that you just mentioned, were illegal under the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may lessen competition. Looking back, it's clear that all of those mergers did lessen competition. And when you lessen competition, the harms to consumers are not just high prices, which was which are harder to see when in the digital age. But its loss of innovation is loss of choice, and loss of control. So when we approve anti competitive mergers, consumers are harmed. 1:55:48 Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL): Section 230, as I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected by others, would say that if a technology platform is a neutral public platform, that they enjoy certain liability protections that newspapers don't enjoy, that Newscorp doesn't enjoy with its assets. And so does it make the anti competitive posture of technology platforms more pronounced, that they have access to this special liability protection that the people you represent don't have access to? David Chavern: Oh, absolutely. There's a huge disparity. Frankly, when our contents delivered through these platforms, we get the liability and they get the money. So that's a good deal from that end. We are responsible for what we publish, we publishers can and do get sued. On the other hand, the platforms are allowed to deliver and monetize this content with complete lack of responsibility. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2018 Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center Transcript: 9:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017 Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow Transcript: 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD223: Election 2020: The Empire Returns

15 november 2020 | 78 min

The election is... Actually not quite over but we have to record this episode sometime. In this episode, a breakdown of the notable winners and losers. Did we fire them all? Or... Any of them? Executive Producer: Ronda Kisner Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes The Impeachment of John Koskinen Articles/Documents Article: By Muri Assuncao, Daily News, November 13, 2020 Article: By Barbara Starr, Zachary Cohen and Ryan Browne, CNN, November 13, 2020 Report: By FEDweek, November 12, 2020 Article: By Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill, November 12, 2020 Article: By James Brooks, Anchorage Daily News, November 12, 2020 Article: By Christopher Bing, Reuters, November 12, 2020 Article: By Natalie Andrews, The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2020 Article: By Andres L. Cordova, The Hill, November 11, 2020 Article: By Heather Caygle and Sarah Ferris, Politico, November 11, 2020 Article: By Gus Burns, Governing, November 11, 2020 Article: By Meghann Myers, Military Times, November 10, 2020 Article: By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS, The New York Times, November 10, 2020 Article: By Jennifer Shutt, Roll Call, November 10, 2020 Article: By Dan Lamothe, Ellen Nakashima, Alex Horton, The Washington Post, November 9, 2020 Article: By Elliot Ramos, NBC News, November 9, 2020 Article: By Jake Davis, Bryce Oats, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By Virginia Chamlee, People, November 9, 2020 Article: By Eleanor Eagen, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, November 9, 2020 Article: By Scott Shafer, npr, November 9, 2020 Article: By Bridget Bowman, Roll Call, November 7, 2020 Article: By Chiara Eisner, Governing, November 6, 2020 Article: By Alan Greeblatt, Governing, November 6, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Akin, Roll Call, November 6, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Saul, The New York Times, November 6, 2020 Article: By David Sirota and Andrew Perez, The Daily Poster, November 5, 2020 Article: By David A. Lieb, Associated Press, November 5, 2020 Article: By Chris Cioffi, Roll Call, November 4, 2020 Article: By Jeremy Turley, Grand Forks Herald, November 4, 2020 Article: By Hannah Miao, CNBC, November 4, 2020 Article: By Carl Smith, Tod Newcombe, Governing, November 4, 2020 Article: By Alan Ehrenhalt, Governing, November 4, 2020 Article: By Glenn Greenwald, November 4, 2020 Article: By David Moore, Sludge, November 4, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, November 4, 2020 Article: By Nik DeCosta-Klipa, Boston.com, November 4, 2020 Article: By Matthew Rosenberg, The New York Times, November 3, 2020 Article: By Carl Smith, Governing, November 3, 2020 Article: By Michael Oder and Fallon Appleton, KBTX-TV, November 3, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, November 2, 2020 Article: By Alan Greenblatt, Governing, November 2, 2020 Article: By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, November 1, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, October 28, 2020 Article: By Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Network, October 26, 2020 Article: By Lisa Rein, Josh Dawsey, and Toluse Olorunnipa, The Washington Post, October 23, 2020 The White House, October 21, 2020 Article: By Erich Wagner, Government Executive, October 22, 2020 Article: By Megan Sauer, USA Today, September 26, 2020 Article: By Teresa Ghilarducci, Forbes, August 31, 2020 Article: By Revere Journal, July 8, 2020 Article: By Paige Minemyer, Fierce Healthcare, February 24, 2020 Article: By Todd Ruger, Roll Call, June 27, 2019 Article: By Aaron Bycoffe, Ella Koeze, David Wasserman and Julia Wolfe, FiveThirtyEight, January 25, 2018 Additional Resources , CNN , Fox News OpenSecrets.org Sound Clip Sources Video: , Politico, October 22, 2020 Facebook Live Video: , Independent, June 18, 2020 Facebook Live Video: , Politico, June 17, 2020 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD222: 116th Congress Performance Review

31 oktober 2020 | 82 min

In the last episode before the 2020 election, let's take a comprehensive look at what went on in the 116th Congress, a divided Congress during which the House of Representatives was controlled for the first time since Congressional Dish began by the Democratic Party. It was a chaotic two years, with a series of unprecedented events. Did our Congress serve us well in these crazy times? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Kicking the Funding Can Dingleberries Against Police Brutality CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law The COVID-19 Response Laws Coronavirus (COVID-19) USMCA with Lori Wallach The Brink of the Iran War State of Corporatism Impeachment: The Evidence Democracy Upgrade Stalled Welcome to the 116th Congress Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE Bombing Libya Ukraine Aid Bill What Do We Want In Ukraine? Articles/Documents Article: By Greenwald, October 29, 2020 Article: By Kiran Stacey in Washington and Hannah Murphy, Financial Times, October 27, 2020 Article: By Alexander Sammon, The American Prospect, October 26, 2020 Article: By Matt Taibbi, Reporting by Matt Taibbi, October 24, 2020 Article: By Jan Murphy, PennLive, October 21, 2020 Article: By Intercepted, The Intercept, October 20, 2020 Article: By ABC7 Staff, WWSB September 28, 2020 Article: By Bryce Covert, The Intercept, July 14, 2020 Transcript: Rev, May 20, 2020 Article: By Paul Sonne and Rosalind S. Helderman, May 19, 2020 Article: By Thomas Franck, CNBC, April 24, 2020 Article: By Scott Smith, AP News, December 23, 2019 Article: By Priscilla Alvarez and Caroline Kelly, CNN, December 10, 2019 Article: By Gerald F. Seib, The Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2019 Document: by the Executive Office of the President, National Archives, February 15, 2019 Article: By Noah Feldman, Bloomberg Opinion, January 8, 2019 Article: By Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal, Mint Press News, January 19, 2019 Article: By Indra Ekmanis, The World, January 11, 2019 Article: By Renee Parsons, Common Dreams, March 5, 2014 Article: By Will Englund, The Washington Post, December 15, 2013 Additional Resources Confirmation Listing: , United States Courts, October 30, 2020 , By National Conference of State Legislatures, October 22, 2020 , Wikipedia Images Tweet: , Twitter Tweet: , Twitter Tweet: Sound Clip Sources News Clip: , CNN, October 25, 2020 News Clip: , CBS News, September 9, 2020 Hearing: , May 20, 2020 Transcript: 13:00 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. What we’re doing now, I think within the last three weeks, we have demonstrated a real, real great progress in the reforms. We voted in the Parliament 100% tariffs, despite the fact that the IMF expected only 75%. We are launching real reform of the state owned enterprises. We are launching reform for the prices for medicine, removing all the obstacles. VP Joe Biden: I agree, I agree. 14:45 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Joe Biden. How are you? Petro Poroshenko: Very well indeed, as is usual when I hear your voice. VP Joe Biden: You are doing very well. Congratulations on getting the new Prosecutor General. I know that there’s a lot more that has to be done but I really think that’s good and I understand your working with the Rada in the coming days on a number of additional laws to secure the IMF, but congratulations on installing the new prosecutor general. It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin did, and I’m a man of my word, and now that the new prosecutor general is in place we’re ready to move forward in signing that new one billion dollar loan guarantee. I don’t know how you want to go about that? I’m not going to be able to get to Kiev anytime soon, I mean, in the next month or so, and I don’t know whether you could either sign it with our ambassador… 26:20 VP Joe Biden: Hey, Mr. President. Petro Poroshenko: Very good to hear you. VP Joe Biden: Good to hear you. By the way, you know I’ve talked about this a lot before. I guess Monday is the second anniversary. Remember, I’m counting on you to be the founding father of the modern Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko: Thank you, Joe. And I… I just want to be a little bit proactive. So we have no doubt that we should… implement the reforms but we should implement the reforms in a way that the people trust because if people do not trust the reforms, the reforms will be impossible to implement. Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform, March 12, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Anthony Fauci: Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Robert Redfield: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Kadlec: Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 36:30 Anthony Fauci: In the spirit of staying ahead of the game, right now, we should be doing things that separate us as best as possible from people who might be infected. And there are ways to do that. You know, we use the word social distancing, but most people don't know what that means, for example, crowds. We just heard that they're going to limit access to the capital. That's a really, really good idea to do. I know you like to meet and press the flesh with your constituencies. I think not now, I think you need I need I think you need to really cool it for a while because we should we should be practicing mitigation, even in areas that don't have a dramatic increase. I mean, everyone looks to Washington State. They look to California, they're having an obvious serious problem. But their problem now may be our problem tomorrow. News Clip: , White House, PBS NewsHour, February 4, 2020 Hearing: , House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Witness , Owner of Providence Hotels Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the right white house meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the white house meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did mr Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the president United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with mr Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. Hearing: [Impeachment Inquiry, House Hearings Ambassador Kurt Volker and National Security Aide Tim Morrison](), House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Witnesses: Transcript: 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to president Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians, the mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mary Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of vice president Biden in these conversations. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 13, 2019 Witnesses: William Taylor George Kent Transcript: 45:30 George Kent: In mid August, it became clear to me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. Engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. Video: , The Week, November 4, 2019 Press Video: , The Washington Post, March 7, 2019 , White House, U.S. Senate, February 5, 2019 Transcript: 1:05:28 President Donald Trump - Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido. We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom -- and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence --- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. News Clip: , Fox Business Network, December 18, 2018 News Clip: , Jennifer Haberkorn, Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2018 Remarks by Secretary of State: , U.S. Department of State, January 17, 2018. Discussion: ; Council on Foreign Affairs; January 23, 2018. Speakers: Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden, former Vice President of the United States Transcript: 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there’s no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn’t be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What’s an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD221: Kicking the Funding Can

12 oktober 2020 | 72 min

Surprise, surprise! Congress failed to fund the government on time again. In this episode, discover the hidden secrets in the bill that temporarily funds the government and the politics behind the dingleberries that hitched a ride into law. Executive Producer: Brooks Rogers Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Politics Politics Politics CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law, Nuclear Desperation, Bills : September 22, 359-17-1 : September 30, 84-10 Outline Extends government funding from 2020 at the same levels until December 11, 2021 Gives permission to the Secretary of the Navy to spend over $1.6 billion to enter into a contract for who Columbia class submarines Amends the CARES Act to extend the expiration date of , which allows any government agency to to change their contracts to allow the government to pay for up to 40 Horus per week of paid leave that contractors pay for their employees. This only applies to contractors who can’t work because their facilities are closed and can’t do their work remotely. The expiration is shifted from September 30 to December 11. Extends the authority from the CARES Act, which , for the Library of Congress to reimburse the Little Scholars Child Development Center and Tiny Findings Development Center for salaries for employees who can’t work due to COVID-19 closures in the capitol. It also extends the authority for the government to pay the salaries of contractors that work on the capitol until the end of the public emergency. The authorities are extended until the end of the public emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Adds $728 billion to the $550 billion for loan guarantees for mortgage backed securities Extends the borrowing limit for the Commodity Credit Corporation to reimburse it for net realized losses as of September 17, 2020. Allows Federal funds to be used to cover operating losses for food and beverage service on Amtrak Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish fees ranging between $1,500 and $2,500 for applications for employment based immigration. Permanently reauthorizes antitrust provisions that encourages corporations to cooperate in antirust civil cases by limiting the fines that can be imposed upon cooperating companies. Expands eligibility for food stamps for children who usually get meals provided at school to include children in hybrid model schools and day cares. Extends the states’ authority to apply for waivers for school meal requirements in order to provide meals in a COVID-safe way until September 30, 2021 Gives the states the ability to extend certification periods for households receiving food assistance to December 31, 2021, and to adjust interview requirements through June 30, 2021, if they want to, without getting permission from the Secretary of Agriculture Prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from using funding, facilities, or authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide payments to refiners or importers of fossil fuels unless the payments are for biofuels and prohibits the Commodity Credit Corporation from exchanging fossil fuel products for agricultural products until the end of March 2021. Articles/Documents Article: By Manu Raju and Ted Barrett, CNN, October 8, 2020 Article: By Jacob Knutson, Axios, October 8, 2020 Article: By Patricia Murphy and Greg Bluestein, AJC, October 8, 2020 Article: By O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa, October 5, 2020 Article: By Tim Alberta, Politico, October 4, 2020 Article: By IVN, Imperial Valley News, October 4, 2020 Article: , Eyewitness 11 News, October 3, 2020 Article: By Scott MacFarlane and Sophia Barnes, 4 Washington, October 2, 2020 Article: By Phil Hall, DSNews, October 2, 2020 Article: By Daniel Gonzalez, Arizona Republic, azcentral., September 30, 2020 Article: By Eric Katz, Government Executive, September 30, 2020 Article: By Caitlin Emma, Politico, September 30, 2020 Article: By Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, September 30, 2020 Article: By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, September 21, 2020 Article: By Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, September 21, 2020 Article: By Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, September 21, 2020 Article: By Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, September 18, 2020 Article: By Orla McCaffrey, The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Kelly, Jarrett Renshaw, Reuters, September 16, 2020 Article: By Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, September 14, 2020 Report: By Congressional Research Service, USNI News, September 11, 2020 Article: By Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, September 8, 2020 Document: By Congressional Research Service, September 8, 2020 Article: By David B. Larter and Joe Gould, Defense News, September 3, 2020 Article: By Megan Eckstein, USNI News, September 1, 2020 Article: By Mike Lillis and Scott Wong, The Hill, August 31, 2020 Article: By Steve Morris , Government Accountability Office, August 21, 2020 Article: , By Darla Mercado, CNBC, June 11, 2020 Article: , Up to Us, June 3, 2020 Article: By Megan Eckstein, USNI News, June 2, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Kelly, Reuters, March 25, 2020 Article: By Megan Stubbs, Congressional Research Service, September 4, 2019 Article: By Jonathan Chait, New York Intelligencer, September 18, 2018 Additional Resources , Congressional Research Service Book: , By David Dayen, July, 2020 Bill: , govtrack, July 27, 2020 Blog: , CLASP: The Center for Law and Social Policy, 2020 Homepage: , Tiny Findings, 2020 Report: , House Committee on the Budget, Chairman John Yarmuth, December 3, 2019 2017 Summary Statement and Initiatives: , HUD, 2017 , Library of Congress, 2015 , General Dynamics , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org , OpenSecrets.org Appropriations: , OpenSecrets.org Appropriations: , OpenSecrets.org Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House , History, Art & Archives, United States House of Representatives Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. House of Representatives, House Appropriations Committee, September 22, 2020 Transcript: 9:00 Steny Hoyer: Briefly want to say to the Appropriations Committee, congratulations for doing your work. I know there was controversy, everybody didn't support it. But we passed 10 of the 12 appropriation bills almost two months ago. Clearly sufficient time to reach agreement and pass the appropriation bills, not a CR. CR is a recognition of failure. Failure of to get our work done in a timely fashion. And I regret that I take some credit for passing 10 bills last year, in June, and 10 bills this year in July. I pushed the Appropriations Committee pretty hard. Staff worked hard, members worked hard. And we got our bills done.The Senate has not introduced - has not marked up - a single bill in committee. There's no bill out of committee, there's no bills on the floor, which means that the Senate has essentially abandoned the appropriations process. Madam Speaker, that's not the way the Congress the United States ought to work. 11:00 Steny Hoyer: From now, until hopefully before December 11, that's a Friday - we're scheduled to break for Christmas and the holidays - I'm hopeful that everyone will put their heads together to get the appropriation process done. And we'll probably do it in an omnibus, not single appropriation bills, which is not a good way to do it either. When I joined the Appropriations Committee, and we passed one bill at a time, the Senate passed one bill at a time, and we came to conference and sat down together, the members of the Defense Committee, the members of the Treasury, postal committee and labor health committees, we came together individually, and we worked out agreements between the two bodies. That is the way it ought to work. It's not working that way. And a world of alternatives, this is the best we have. So we need to take it. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD220: Postal Service Sabotage

7 september 2020 | 126 min

The mail has been slow this summer, no doubt about it, but did the Trump administration slow the mail down on purpose in order to interfere with mail-in voting? In this episode, listen to highlights of recent emergency Congressional hearings in order to learn what's really going on at USPS. The sabotage is real, but the situation is different from what you probably think. Special guest: Alexis Claypool Glaser Executive Producer: Jose Huerta Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes Save the Post Office! National Endowment for Democracy, Bills Signed into law on December 20, 2006 Votes: Passed the House by voice vote. Passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Four people have their names on the law: 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats Articles/Documents Article: by Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson, New York Times, September 2, 2020. Article: By Kim Lyons, The Verge, August 25, 2020 Article: By Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek, August 25, 2020 Article: By Daniel Villarreal, Newsweek, August 24, 2020 Article: By Ben Hall, Kevin Wisniewski, News Channel 5 Nashville, August 24, 2020 Article: by Katelyn Caralle, The Daily Mail, August 23, 2020. Article: By Kenneth P. Vogel, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Alan Rappeport and Hailey Fuchs, The New York Times, August 22, 2020 Article: By Lisa Rein, Michael Scherer, Jacob Bogage and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, August 22, 2020 Article: By Jenna Grande, CREW, August 21, 2020 Article: By Paul P. Murphy, CNN, August 21, 2020 Document: By Department of the Treasury, August 21, 2020 Article: By Aaron Gordon, Vice, August 20, 2020 Article: By Lucien Bruggeman, ABC News, August 20, 2020 Article: By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, August 20, 2020 Article: By Jacob Bogage and Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, August 20, 2020 Article: By LAURA J. NELSON, MAYA LAU, The Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 20, 2020 Article: By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, August 19, 2020 Article: By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, August 19, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 18, 2020 Article: By Roger Sollenberger, salon, August 18, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 17, 2020 Article: The Washington Post, August 17, 2020 Article: By Erin Cox, Elise Viebeck, Jacob Bogage, and Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, August 14, 2020 Article: By Kim Lyons, The Verge, August 13, 2020 Article: By Marshall Cohen, CNN, August 12, 2020 Article: By Aaron Rupar, Vox, August 11, 2020 Article: By Jeremy Herb and Jessica Dean, CNN, August 10, 2020 Article: By Jessica Dean, Jessica Schneider and Caroline Kelly, CNN, August 3, 2020 Article: By Jacob Bogage, The Washington Post, July 29, 2020 Letter: From Steven Mnuchin, Federal News Network, July 28, 2020 Article: By Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, May 18, 2020 Document: By Department of the Treasury, December 4, 2018 Article: By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and NATALIE KITROEFF, The New York Times, October 21, 2018 Order: White House, April 12, 2018 Article: By Brian Murphy, The News & Observer, October 3, 2017 Article: By Joe Davidson, The Washington Post, January 5, 2017 Article: By Lisa Rein, The Washington Post, January 16, 2015 Article: By Joe Davidson, The Washington Post, January 16, 2014 Article: By David Dayen, The New Republic, February 10, 2014 Article: By Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey, United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, October 24, 2011 Document: By UNITED STATES POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Document: By Kevin R. Kosar, Congressional Research Service, December 14, 2009 ______ Additional Resources Bill: Tweet: , Twitter, August 22, 2020 Profile: , LinkedIn Collection: , Postal Regulatory Commission Postal leadership: Leadership: Images Source: Source: , Twitter Source: , Twitter Sound Clip Sources News: , Twitter, August 28, 2020 Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, August 24, 2020 Witnesses: Louis DeJoy: Postmaster General Robert Duncan: Chairman of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors Transcript: Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Mr. DeJoy, as a megadonor for the Trump campaign, you were picked along with Michael Cohen and Elliot Broiding, two man who have already pled guilty to felonies, to be the three deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Did you pay back several of your top executives for contributing to Trump's campaign by bonusing, or rewarding them? Louis DeJoy: That's an outrageous claim, sir, and I resent it. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) I'm just asking a question. Louis DeJoy:* The answer is no. **Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) So you did not bonus or reward any of your executives. Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Anyone that you solicited for contribution to the Trump campaign? Louis DeJoy: No, sir. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Not in whole or in part? Louis DeJoy: Actually, during the Trump campaign. I wasn't even working at my company anymore. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Well, we want to make sure that... campaign contributions are illegal. So all your campaign are legal. Louis DeJoy: I'm fully aware of legal campaign contributions. And I resent the assertion? So what are you accusing me of? Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Well, I'm asking a question. Do your mail delays fit Trump's campaign goal of hurting the post office, as stated in his tweets? Are your mail delays implicit campaign contributions? Louis DeJoy: I'm not going to answer these types of questions. I'm here to represent the Postal Service, it has nothing to do with... All my actions have to do with improvements in postal service. Am I the only one in this room that understands that we have a $10 billion a year loss. Right. Am I the only one in this room that has looked at the OIG reports that have stacked up? Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Will you give this committee your communications with Mark Meadows, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, with the President. Louis DeJoy: Go ahead and do that. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) Mr. DeJoy, is your backup plan to be pardoned like Roger Stone? You have two seconds to answer the question. Louis DeJoy: I have no comment on that. Rep. Greg Stube (FL): I as a veteran who served in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom to compare postal workers to our military service members in Iraq or Afghanistan, quite frankly, to me is offensive. Last time I checked Postal Service drivers weren't getting their vehicles blown up by IEDs are being shot out as they drove around and delivered mail. So to try to compare our military service members who sacrifice on the battlefields across this world to our postal service members, that is frankly offensive as a person that had served. Louis DeJoy: It was the summertime, mail volume was down significantly, so it was not...we're getting ready for the peak season and an election is three months away. It was a good time to start to try and roll this out that we are getting the request was just run your trucks on time, put a plan to run your trucks on time. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): Do you not tell the Board of Governors this month, in August, that in fact you have had contact with a Trump campaign to ask them to stop their attacks on the Postal Service and voting by mail? Louis DeJoy: I have put words around to different people that this is not helpful to... Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): You did have contact with the Trump campaign, for a good purpose? Louis DeJoy: I'm trying to think...when you say the Trump campaign, I've not spoken to Trump campaign leadership in that regard. I've spoken to people that have filled that out that are friends of mine that are associated with the campaign. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): One of them was Steve Mnuchin. Louis DeJoy: Steve Mnuchin is Secretary of Treasury. Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA): I know. Louis DeJoy: Yeah, I never spoke to Steve about telling the President to not do something. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): What do you make of the former Chairman of the Board of Governors, Mr. Fineman calling Treasury Secretary Mnuchin involvement's in the selection process 'absolutely unprecedented.' Louis DeJoy: Stephen Mnuchin had nothing to do with my selection. Okay. I was called by Russell... Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Did you talk to Secretary Mnuchin about taking the job? There was report that you had lunch together to discuss it? Louis DeJoy: Totally inaccurate and outrageous. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): You've never talked to him about it, before taking job you never talked to him about taking the job? Louis DeJoy: I talked to him about the job after I received the offer. I did not accept the offer immediately. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Okay, but you never spoke to him before about his soliciting your interest in the job or... Louis DeJoy: He did not solicit any interest. I kept my interest, which as you identified, he did not know that I had an interest. I had a perfectly good life prior to this, but I was interested in helping and I was called by Russell Reynolds out of the blue. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Thank you, Mr. DeJoy for being here. I want to see if we can find some common ground to resolve some of the differences. Can you begin by sharing with the American people in this committee, the unofficial motto of the postal service? Louis DeJoy: No rain or snow, sleet nor hail will make our delivery? Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Yes. It's about service. Correct, not about profit. Do you know how many veterans served in the postal service? About? Louis DeJoy: 100,000? Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Correct. Do you know what percentage of veterans about rely on the postal service for their prescription medicine? Louis DeJoy: I don't know. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): It's a high number. It's about 80% of veterans. So I guess my beginning I want to ask you this, you know, our defense department. We don't tell them you have to go sell weapons to make revenue to serve the American people. We don't say that about our health service, or the National Institute of Health. Why should we have a different standard for the postal service? Why do you have to go and make a profit instead of just serving the American people, sir, it's interesting and good question. And it's not that we need to make a profit. It's to be self sustaining, which means at least cover your costs. But why it's such a small. I'm not a legislator, I'm the Postmaster General Do you know? I mean, do you know the history? Do you remember the time in the Postal Service history where that wasn't a requirement? Louis DeJoy: I do in the 70s. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Actually, it was from 1840 to 1970. We funded the Postal Service, we didn't require them to make a profit because we thought people should in rural America and other places and our veterans should serve and one of the reasons people serve in the Postal Service who've served in our military is they view it as public service. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Your perspective is that these mail sorting machines aren't required, because packages need to be delivered and open up floor space. It's your testimony that you didn't direct it, correct? Who directed it? Louis DeJoy: I didn't, have not done and investigation. It came probably through our operations. It's been a long term and you don't know who directed it. You don't know who implemented it. Louis DeJoy: Well, there's hundreds of them around the country in different places. It was an initiative within the organization that preceded me. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): So if it costs less than a billion dollars, regardless of whether it's efficient or not, what is the harm in just putting those machines back until Election Day, just for the peace of mind for the confidence of the American people? Louis DeJoy: Well, first of all, sir, we've heard all statistics about the mail and the votes and so forth. Right. And we don't need the machines to process it. But you make a statement about for a billion dollars, if we just gave you a billion dollars, you're not going to give us a billion dollars. We're going to make a request. You have no way of getting us a billion dollars. We haven't been funded in 10 years. You can't pass any legislation that helps the Postal Service. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): If I can just finish this point. We give you the money. Do you see my point? Louis DeJoy: It's a hypothetical, I'm not willing to...you haven't given us any money, you haven't given us any legislation and you're sitting here accusing me with regard to the machines as the committee. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): But what is the harm? I think most Americans are trying to understand what is the harm in putting these machines even if the machines in your perspective don't do anything, what is the harm to do until Election Day. Louis DeJoy: In Washington, it makes plenty of sense, to me it makes none. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): You haven't explained why and then final question. Louis DeJoy: Because they're not needed that's why. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): But if it will restore people's faith in a democracy and avoid a polarized electorate, I would think it... Louis DeJoy: Okay, get me the billion and I'll put the machines in. Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): Okay, well, that's a commitment. We'll find a way to get you the money. Rep. Glen Grothman (WI): You right now have I'm told about $14 billion in the bank. Do you anticipate the election causing that to be rundown at all? Or do you anticipate it going up, would have any dent on it? Louis DeJoy: I don't think it will have too much of an impact in either way. Rep. Glen Grothman (WI): Okay, so if you had 14 billion in the bank, now, you're still going to have 14 billion on as you know, on December first. Louis DeJoy: That it this point we lose, we will probably lose 10 or $11 billion this year. So depending on how package volume stays, we could have less cash. And if I may, having $14 billion, we also have, I have $12 billion worth of liabilities that need to be paid at some time over the next six months. We have $135 billion of liabilities, we wanting a 633,000 person organization that does not get funding even though the federal government ends in September, they have an expectation of getting funding. We don't have an expectation of getting funding so we have to drive cost out and increase revenue. And that's the big difference that we have than any other agency. So for $14 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, it's not a lot of money for what we do. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I want to take this opportunity to enter into the record Madam Chair, on August 18 2020 emailed from USPS Director of Maintenance Operations Kevin Couch. Madam Chair. The email reads "please message out to your respective maintenance managers tonight they are not to reconnect, reinstall machines that have been previously just been disconnected without approval from headquarters maintenance no matter what direction they are getting from their plant manager." Mr. DeJoy, yes or no. And you've indicated in this committee hearing that it's not your job to decide about whether sorting machines are on or offline. But at the same time you told Mr. Khanna that you won't bring them online because they're not needed. So yes or no, have any plant managers requested mail sorting machines be reconnected? Louis DeJoy: First of all, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): Yes or no. Louis DeJoy: I disagree with the premise. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I'm not asking you anything other than, reclaiming my time Madam Chair. Yes or no? Madam Chair Reclaiming her time, yes or no answer. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): Yes or No. Have any plant managers across the country in the USPS requested mail sorting machines be reconnected. Louis DeJoy: How would I know that? Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): You're in charge? You don't know whether there are there are plant managers that have requested. Louis DeJoy: No I don't know that. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): But let me let me just assure you that there are plant managers that was reported in the in the press in both Washington. There are plant managers in Texas and Washington. And I have articles that I can show you that have asked to have sorting machines reconnected and brought back online. And they've been too scared to come forward to say so. So you've you've indicated that it's local leadership in this hearing, I heard you say it's not your job to decide whether the sorting machines are brought online or not. Someone needs to mute Madam Chair. Madam Chair, please, please mute. Madam Chair People that are listening, please mute. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL): I probably I need probably about additional 30 seconds from the interruptions added back onto my time, please. You have said in this hearing, it's both not your job to make decisions about sorting machines, and at the same time, you've said that you're not going to bring them back online because they're not needed. It can't be both. Louis DeJoy: Across the country, our employee availability is down three, 3 to 4% on average across the country, but the issue is in some of the hot spots in the country areas like Philadelphia, Detroit is probably 20, the averages cover that and that could be down 20% and that's given us this, contributing to the delivery problem that we're having. Louis DeJoy: I had nothing to do with the with the collection boxes, the sorting machines, the postal post office hours or limiting overtime, the change I made was asked the team to run the trucks transportation on time and mitigate extra trips based on a review of an OIG audit that was absolutely astonishing in the amount of money we were spending and the number of late trips and extra trips we were running. It was a plan that was rolled out with operations in is very, very important aspect of the network. It's a very people ask why do trucks matter? Why did on time trucks matter? They do matter. It's a fundamental premise of how the whole mail network is put together. If the if the trucks don't run on time, the mail carriers can't leave on time they're out there at night. They have to come back and get more mail collection processes or late, plant processes distorted. I see several billion dollars in potential savings in getting the system to connect properly. And that's why we ran out and put a plan together to really get this fundamental basic principle. Run your trucks on time. I find it really... I would not I would not know how to reverse that. Now, what am I to say? Don't run the trucks on time. Is that the answer that we're looking to get me to say here today? Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Duncan, you've also been active in President Trump's campaign. And as a director of American Crossroads superpac. Is that correct? Robert Duncan: I'm the director of American Crossroads Super PAC. Yes. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): And you've contributed over $1.9 million to President Trump's campaign. Robert Duncan: That's not correct. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Not you personally but the PAC. Robert Duncan: I don't know the answer to that. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Well, the records show that. Louis DeJoy: Before I went into... In the Postal Service, you file your forms the day you arrive at work, I filed my forms. I was going to a meeting on Amazon, I owned stock someplace in a call at Morgan Stanley, and I was...that they told me I had to either recuse myself from reviewing a number of contracts or sell the stock. I called our broker to sell the stock. We actually had calls. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. DeJoy, I'm gonna have to Louis DeJoy: but I did not buy options. I actually bought call calls that Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): It's on your statement. Louis DeJoy: I bought covered calls back and at a loss. That's what I did to get completely out of stock. I had to unwind covered calls. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): You still have those calls, do you not? Louis DeJoy: No, I had to pay more money for the calls than I sold them for. I think you should get an understanding of what a covered call is before you accuse me of any improprieties. Louis DeJoy: We got to this specific change. The production schedules within the plants were not aligned with the transportation schedules going between the plants. About 10% of the mail was not aligned. The production plants were getting done late and the trucks were leaving. And this was not a mandate that every truck leaves on time, we still have a significant amount of trucks that run delayed and a significant amount of extra trips. Judgments were made at each individual plant that provided for transitional issues and doing it. We will get this back. We're working very hard and it will be a successful endeavor for the United States Postal Service. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): Mr. DeJoy when, when your announcement in your new position as Postmaster General was announced, you know, there was some folks that were flagging concerns that you would be the first Postmaster General in two decades without previous experience or service directly in the USPS. But to be fair, and as you mentioned, you do have extensive career experience in supply chain logistics, correct? Louis DeJoy: I do. And in fact, you serve the CEO of your own supply chain company new breed logistics for 30 years, correct? Louis DeJoy: I did. And that was up until about 2014 when you merged new breed logistics with another company XPO logistics were you also served as CEO for a year and then served on its board of directors until about 2018 when you submitted your resignation. Correct? Louis DeJoy: Yeah. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): On June 24th 2020, you bought between 50,000 and 100,000, in what you refer to as, quote covered calls in the Amazon Corporation. But let's be very clear, Mr. DeJoy, no matter what financial maneuvering you performed to try to hide it. The fact is that you have financial interest in Amazon. So Mr. DeJoy, yes or no? Are you aware that Amazon uses the US Postal Service for 40% of its shipping? Louis DeJoy: I disagree with the premise that I bought stock and... Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Do you know that 40% of its shipping? Louis DeJoy: I know there's a lot of shipping with us. Yes. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Okay. And I understand it. Your Amazon covered calls expires in about October of this year. So you'll have to make a decision regarding this financial interest and may potentially have sensitive information about Amazon's business with the US Postal Service which may influence that decision. This appears to be a classic example of conflict of interest, insider trading. Yes or no, will you commit right now. divest any and all financial interest in Amazon to avoid illegal insider trading. Louis DeJoy: Ma'am that was a lot of time on an issue that doesn't matter. I don't own any Amazon stock. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): You have financial interest. You can call it whatever you want. Louis DeJoy: I don't own anything with Amazon. You can continue to... Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Until you do that. Your financial interest in Amazon will continue to be problematic and illegal and a conflict of interest. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Did you actually read and independently analyze the major overhaul plans before you ordered them to take effect? Louis DeJoy: Again, I will repeat that I did not order a major overhaul plans, the items you identify were not directed by me. I did. And we don't need much analysis to get to run your trucks to a schedule. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Reclaiming my time. Mr. DeJoy, could you please tell me who did order these changes if he U.S. Postmaster General did not because these changes have resulted in and you have set yourself in this hearing. Louis DeJoy: The Postal Service has been around for 250 years. There were plans there were many, many executives, almost 30,000 executives within the organization, and there are plans that existed prior to my arrival that were implemented. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. DeJoy If you did not order these actions to be taken. Please tell the committee the name of who did. Louis DeJoy: I do not know. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. Joy Did you analyze these plans before they went into effect? US Postmaster General supervise whoever did apparently... Louis DeJoy: As I've stated numerous times the plans were in effect and being implemented before I arrived. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Mr. DeJoy, do you take responsibility for these changes? Louis DeJoy: I take responsibility from the day I sat in a seat for any service deterioration that has occurred. You're asking about operational changes that go on throughout the whole organization around the around the country. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): I'm reclaiming my time sir. Mr. DeJoy, will you commit to reversing these changes. Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Do you own any financial interest, whether options or stocks covered calls, bought or sold? Do you own today any financial interest in Amazon? Louis DeJoy: I do not. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You've accepted the responsibility for the delays. But we're still not clear what exactly what changes took place and what were yours. Under Miss Lawrence's questioning. You said you stopped the pilot program. When you stopped everything else. Let me ask you, what in your mind, were you stopping besides the pilot program? Louis DeJoy: I stopped the removal of collection boxes around the country. I stopped the process of reducing hours at postal retail centers and I stopped the removal of the flat and mail sortation boxes, machines. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): So, your argument for doing that is that you saw... that it wasn't working or? Louis DeJoy: No they... I met with with with the speaker and Senator Schumer and we just collectively thought about the heightened discussion that was going on around the nation. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And respectfully, Sir, why that and not the overtime issues and not the sorting machines? Why did you pick those and not the others which seem to have pretty dramatic impacts? Given the fact that things didn't go well, wouldn't you want to look back coming from the private sector and say, gee, maybe that is impacting us negatively. Was there some other reason you're thinking, well, no, I'm not going to change those. Louis DeJoy: Not changed their truck schedule and the... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): The overtime, the sorting machine over time. Louis DeJoy: I've spent $700 million and, we have spent 700. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You recognize that there are many including in my district, post office locations which are cutting back on overtime. They're following somebody's order in and you won't mention who that is. So back to accountability, you got to admit your own it right. Louis DeJoy: How do you know that they're cutting back on overtime? Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Imagine or let me put it another way. Are you certain that they're not cutting back on overtime? Louis DeJoy: The direction was given to stop cutting back on overtime in postal retail centers. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): When was that done? Louis DeJoy: I haven't done an audit yet. But I would believe they're pretty compliant. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Wait, when was that order given? Was that part of the order you just talked about? Louis DeJoy: I don't know what you're asking. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Are you saying when you stopped everything else, it included the overtime issue as well. Louis DeJoy: There was no directive to reduce overtime anywhere within the organization. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And are you certain that no one was cutting back on overtime. Louis DeJoy: No, I'm not certain that's part of the problem at the Postal Service, sir. That's what I'm trying to get my hands around there was a lot of... And that's why I did the reorganization. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Respectfully, you can imagine, though, that... Louis DeJoy: There's a lot of judgment made in local areas that is not a normal... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): You're being selective on what you're taking credit for and not and a cynical person could say, you're just trying to avoid going before the regulatory body, because these aren't changes. But when your own, as you say, you're Republican, when your own party says, did you stop these changes? You said yes. And in your documents, you talk about the fact that there were changes. You can't have it both ways. There were changes. You seem to have a line there that you don't want to have, because it means you have to go before the regulatory board and you don't want to do that. Louis DeJoy: It sounds like... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): It sounds like what happened. Louis DeJoy: It sounds like a weak theory to me. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Have you communicated with anyone in the administration? Since you were considered for this spot about how to operate? USPS? Louis DeJoy: No. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): No one has communicated with you who works in any way with the Trump administration. And you haven't communicated in any way with anyone who works in the Trump administration or the Trump campaign about how to operate post office. Louis DeJoy: The only time I communicated with someone in the Trump administration was Secretary Mnuchin, when we were negotiating, negotiating the terms of the $10 billion note and my discussion in general, it was early on in my arrival in generalities were that I think that we have some opportunities here, looking to try and grow revenue, improve service and get some cost out. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And what was the direction the other way? Louis DeJoy: There was no direction. My Postal Service's mind to run there was no direction. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): My time has expired. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, August 21, 2020 Witnesses: Louis DeJoy: Postmaster General Transcript: Louis DeJoy: Our business model established by the Congress requires us to pay our bills through our own efforts. I view it as my personal obligation to put the organization in a position to fulfill that mandate. With action from the Congress and our regulator, and significant effort by the Postal Service, we can achieve this goal. This year, the Postal Service will likely be ported loss of more than $9 billion. Without change, our losses will only increase in the years to come. It is vital that Congress enact reform legislation that addresses our unaffordable retirement payments. Most importantly, Congress must allow the postal service to integrate our retiree health benefits program with Medicare. Louis DeJoy: We deliver to 433 million pieces of mail a day. So 150 million ballots 160 million ballots over a course of a week is a very, very small amount adequate capacity plus mail volume is down as you said 13-14% this year. Louis DeJoy: Today there is about 140,000 collection boxes out in the United States. Over the last 10 years, about 30... averages about 3500. So 35,000 of them have been removed and it's a data driven method I have I haven't reviewed it but every year they look at utilization of post boxes, they look at where they place new post boxes, they look at where communities grow. So 35,000 over 10 years. Since my arrival, we moved 700 post collection boxes, of which I had no idea that that was a process. When we found out, when I found out about it, we socialized it here by some of the leadership team and looked at the excitement it was creating, so I decided to stop it, and we'll pick it up after the election. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Are you limiting overtime or is that being suspended right now and people will work overtime if necessary to move the mail out efficiently every single day. Louis DeJoy: Senator, we've never eliminated overtime. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): It's been curtailed significantly is what I understand. Louis DeJoy: It's not been curtailed by me or the leadership team here. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): It's been curtailed significantly. It's gone down. It's been limited. Will you commit to... Louis DeJoy: Since I've been here we've spent $700 million on overtime. Overtime runs 13% rate before I got here and it runs at a 13% rate now. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Will you be bringing back any mail sorting machines that have been removed since you become Postmaster General, will any of those come back? Louis DeJoy: There is no intention to do that. They're not needed, sir. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): So you will not bring back any processors. Louis DeJoy: They're not needed, sir. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Did you discuss those changes or their potential impact on the November election with the president or anyone at the White House and remind you you're under oath? Louis DeJoy: I have never spoken to the President about the Postal Service other than to congratulate me when I accepted the position. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): Did you speak or discuss any of these changes with Secretary Mnuchin? Louis DeJoy: During the during the discussion in negotiating the note, I told him I'm working on a plan. But I never discussed the changes that I may, to set up, working on a plan for to the to improve service and gain cost efficiencies. But no grave detail other than that, that was about it. Rep. Scott Peters (CA): You have your word that you're not going to mandate that states send out any ballots using either the more expensive first class mail, and will you continue the processes and procedures to allow election mail to move as expeditiously as possible and treated like first class? Louis DeJoy: Yes, sir. We we will deploy processes and procedures that advance any election mail in some cases ahead of first class mail. Louis DeJoy: Like take the Alaska bypass plan discussion that's an item on a table, that's an unfunded mandate. It costs us like $500 million a year. And what I asked for was all the unfunded mandates, right? That's a way for us to get healthy. Pay something for the unfunded mandates. If we just throw 25 billion at us this year, and we don't do anything, we'll be back in two years. If then maybe we should change the legislation and not make us be self sustaining. Louis DeJoy: They're inside the plants. There's a production schedule for mail that would meet, that's set up to meet a dispatch schedule for trucks that gets tied to a destination center for, let's just say keep it simple go right to the delivery units where carriers go out in the morning and carriers then could come back at night. This whole thing is in a lined schedule in theory on paper, and there's lots of imbalances that we were finding as we went through this process, but the big thing to try and get everything aligned around is that transportation schedule. And now we have taken that up and all that mail that was going left well that was on that truck was also late mail. Right now we have advanced the mail we just some of the mail that coming off the processing lines. We found these imbalances and we did not as great a job as we shouldn't recovering for it, but we will. I'm seeing improvements right now. Once that comes together now we'll be moving around the country at 97% on time and I'm very, very excited and committed to trying to do that. And that, again, enables us to balance the front end and the back end, the delivery end of the system and saves us all that money that you saw in the in the audit report and it's it's in billions, not millions. Louis DeJoy: This this is very doable, FedEx and UPS do it. Hearing: , Congressional Progressive Caucus, August 20, 2020 Witnesses: David Williams: Former Inspector General of the USPS and former Vice Chairman of the USPS Board of Governors Mark Dimondstein: President of the American Postal Workers Union Tammy Patrick: Senior Advisor at the Democracy Fund Voice Transcript: David Williams: I recently resigned as the vice chairman of the postal Board of Governors when it became clear to me that the administration was politicizing the postal service with the Treasury Secretary as the lead figure for the White House in that effort. by statute, the Treasury was made responsible for providing the postal service with the line of credit. The Treasury was using our responsibility to make demands that I believe would turn the Postal Service into a political tool in its long history, as an apolitical public infrastructure. David Williams: Clearly the President was determined that the postal service should inflict harm on Amazon delivery by sharply raising parcel shipping prices on everyone by 400% or more. David Williams: The President eventually admitted that he was withholding COVID-19 relief funds from the Postal Service so that it could not reliably enable voting in his upcoming elections. David Williams: The Treasury Secretary also insisted that all republican appointees on the board of governors and the Postal Regulatory Commission come to his office and kiss the ring and receive his blessing before confirmation. This continued context with him away from the full board continued issuing orders and expressing his approval and disappointment in their performance. David Williams: The Secretary was keenly interested in labor agreements, postal pricing increases, and especially volume discounts being given to Postal Service's largest customers Amazon and UPS and FedEx. The Postal Service replied to the early demands from the Secretary, explaining the two provisions he was asking for were illegal, but the concerns were ignored. David Williams: Ironically, the actual fiscal concern was not whether the Postal Service could zero out its $15 billion line of credit. The Postal Service keeps a huge cash on hand account. They could always pay off all our most of that loan. The real concern was that the Treasury had borrowed and spent our $300 billion pension and retiree health Fund. The interest rate set by Treasury for itself was so low that the funds were dying. As the funds been invested in a retirement fund, the liability would be fully covered by now. David Williams: Additionally, post offices should be allowed into related business lines and become a single neighborhood point of access for government services that cannot be put online. Postal carriers going to every door can provide personalized services to challenged and elderly Americans that would enable citizens to live in their own homes independently. Post offices and carriers can also support and resupply the new army of workers that are officeless, are working at home, while providing work opportunities to those living in rural areas. David Williams: I recently resigned as the Vice Chairman of the Postal Board of Governors when it became clear to me that the administration was politicizing the postal service with the Treasury Secretary as the lead figure for the White House in that effort. By statute, the Treasury was made responsible for providing the postal service with the line of credit. The Treasury was using our responsibility to make demands that I believe would turn the Postal Service into a political tool in its long history, as an apolitical public infrastructure. Mark Dimondstein: But our ability to reliably continue to serve the people and serve the country is under threat in several ways. First and most urgently is the effect of the pandemic on a Postal Service's finances. The sharp economic contraction that began in March also affected the mail. Letter mail is contracted over 30%. And even with a surge in package volumes, the postal service projects because that won't list the postal service projects it will suffer $50 billion of lost revenue over the next 10 years directly due to COVID and will likely face a cash shortfall as soon as March of next year. Simply put, because the United States Postal Service normally runs its operations with zero tax dollars, that pandemic related lost revenue places the continuity of a central Postal Service is at serious risk and that's why we've worked so hard along with so many others to secure a minimum of 25 billion in emergency COVID relief and it's backing the bipartisan unanimous request to the postal Board of Governors. Mark Dimondstein: June 2018. The White House Office of Management budget report openly called for the privatization of the Postal Service. White House task force that followed later that year did suggest slowing down the mail cutting delivery services restricting union rights for workers and drastically raising packages. David Williams: After my arrival I had asked and others expressed interest in gaining assurance that the postal service would be able to respond to normal levels and enhanced levels of voting by mail. And actually, if an entire state wanted to vote primarily by mail, we received a formal ???, that the confidence level could not be higher that the Postal Service could perform this task and deliver this volume of of mail transactions. They were in the process and nearly completed, briefing each of the states and the voting, the Secretary of State, explaining to them how the flow would work. If they needed a postmark, helping them understand how to get a postmark on their letters. We were told the capacity was always good, but it was especially good now because during the COVID crisis, the degree of advertising mail and other mail had fallen. And so this would give us plenty of capacity. And they said their experience was great. They'd been handling overseas military mail, a more complicated process for years, and that had gone well. Several states were already voting by mail that had gone well. And they felt they were had forever provided absentee voting process. And so we felt we felt very good about it at that time, and that was quite recent. David Williams: The board interviewed several firms that managed and handled talent. We selected Russell Reynolds, and they began developing a number of candidates. We heard their names and rather late in the process I heard for the first time. Mr. DeJoy's name. It came through one of the governors and he had somehow, Mr. DeJoy come to his attention. They had lunch together and he wanted to move his name forward. It wasn't clear how the governor had met Mr. DeJoy to me and I don't think anyone was clear on it from the presentations. Rep. Mark Pocan (WI): And who was the member of the board of governors who proposed Mr. DeJoy's name? David Williams: Governor John Barger, he was leading the search, his committee was leading the search. David Williams: Actually, it predates the latest $10 billion expansion, goes back to our routine original $15 billion line of credit. Secretary Mnuchin indicated that he wanted to have some say in how the Postal Service ran as sort of being in charge of providing that that account. I don't think that had been done before. It was normally if Congress assigned you that responsibility, you perform the responsibility. He indicated he would like to impose this through the use of terms and conditions on the $15 billion line of credit. We then received shortly after he announced this verbally, we then received the draft terms of agreement. They were very interesting and I hadn't seen anything like it before. He wanted to approve price changes. labor agreements. And perhaps most disturbingly, the very sensitive negotiated service agreements with our largest customers, Amazon, UPS, FedEx and some others. He also was urging that we adopt a pricing methodology called fully allocated cost methodology. That was something that the United Parcel Service had been advocating for a very long time. I think all of us felt that perhaps UPS that influenced him in advocating for that, and it would be really in a ruinous to the postal service to adopt. No one would adopt it, certainly not not UPS themselves, FedEx or Amazon. It would prevent competition in the market where the Postal Service has been gaining market share. David Williams: Also General Counsel sent a letter saying that the transfer of our duties and decision making authority to him was illegal. The Treasury went forward not withstanding that. My position was that when they arrived, we should simply refuse that another department cannot impose its will on another department and the federal government. In addition to that, we're an independent entity, and so it was especially egregious. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): Let me ask you about Postmaster General DeJoy's independence to run an agency when he has significant financial conflicts of interest. He holds at least $30 million in stock and a postal service contractor FBO, and he owns stock and Postal Service competitors, Amazon and ups. So he stands to make enormous profit. If use of the Postal Service goes down and privatization increases, and he is now responsible for slowing mail delivery right now. Can you provide insight into how that happened and whether a normal background check was was instituted in this situation. David Williams: When it became clear that he was a serious candidate and then obvious that he was the person about to be selected, we did discuss conducting a background investigation of him. None was conducted as of the time I left and I believe that was the night before his selection or two nights before selection. Raskin: Do you know why he was selected? David Williams: I don't. David Williams: It looked like there were concerns about whether his company was building correctly and performing fully. Those are often wrong, but I think they they sometimes are correct. That contract file needs to be examined, we need to go through whether the Postal Service demanded that he returned any money or any concerns they had with a performance, that's a very normal kind of examination. And I don't mean to say there were there were valid problems, but this would suggest that an examination should be done. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): With respect to your resignation, you resigned because it was your determination that what the Postal Service was being asked to do, as a condition of a line of credit, which we included in the CARES Act, those conditions were included, those were developed by Mr. Mnuchin in an effort to control the Postal Service, is that right? David Williams: Yes, I was concerned that the Board of Governors was running an independent organization and instead it had become politicized and the decision making was largely transferred to the Secretary of Treasury. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): You were the Inspector General and you were the Vice Chair of the Board of Governors. Have you ever seen or heard in the history of the post office this effort by the President or the executive branch to intrude and take over the operation of the US Postal Service? David Williams: No, sir. I've never seen anything like that. Mark Dimondstein: Overtime was running between 15 and 20%. Some of that just the ebbs and flows of mail. Some of its that were generally short staffed and they need to hire. And some of it's the pandemic. We've had almost 3,000 people who have tested positive for COVID. We've had 40,000 people quarantined since March, when that happens. And of course, we've had all the childcare challenges with schools closing. So leave usages up and the overtime is partly used to make up for that and to just arbitrarily come in and say 15 to 20% of the hours of work. However, they're going to work at higher overtime, some combination of the two, but eliminate 15 to 20% of the hours of work, but the work is still there simply means that the work won't get done, backing up, and we've had evidence, we have pictures of parcels sitting there for over a week, they were just never sorted. And that's the mail that belongs to people this country. David Williams: I was a appointee for both Republican and Democratic administrations. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): Which administrations, if you don't mind. David Williams: Bush, Clinton, as you said, the current president, and then then I also continued service during several other administrations. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): So President Trump did appoint you to the Board of Governors, is that correct? David Williams: He did. David Williams: The removal of the 25 billion happened at the 11th hour after everyone was on board. Secretary Mnuchin removed it personally at the very 11th hour. Rep. Mark Takano (CA): So let's be clear. The Board of Governors appointed by the president requested $25 billion to get through a pandemic, a decline in revenues. That was what was the Board of Governors best estimate of what you would need. Is that correct? David Williams: Yes, sir. Tammy Patrick: Do we know that the majority of voters who vote by mail return their ballots by dropping them in an official Dropbox for the elections office? Tammy Patrick: Let's go out at two different rates, first class and marketing mail and marketing mail used to be called standard and the delivery timeframes didn't used to be that far apart. It used to be first class mail was one to three days, standard mail or marketing mail was more like three to five days. So that was really a question of one or two days difference. But because ballots were going out with the logo, they were getting the first class service for a discounted rate, which I will say many election officials felt was their right under the National Voter Registration Act, which talks about discounted rates for election materials that are used for voter registration. And any ballot that gets returned undeliverable, as addressed gets used to update the voter rolls. So we do know that that the states that traditionally use that marketing mail rate are the western states that have high volumes of vote by mail. And they have just as recently as this last week for the primaries that have happened in Washington, Arizona. Millions of ballots went out at marketing mail rates, they did not see a decrease in delivery. They did not see delays. The local Postal Services are telling election officials whether it's the secretaries of state or county recorders or registrar's or auditors, that they will get that mail through on time. So I'm not as worried about that part of it. The part I'm concerned about is the message that it gets to the voter. And whether or not the voter is going to still believe local officials all across the country have told me in the last week, the number one thing they're doing is answering the phone with concerns from voters who have put in an application to get a ballot by mail, and now are worried that they shouldn't have done that. David Williams: There are a couple of very odd aspects to this pullback. One is you don't save money by breaking down machines and putting them away and storing them you spend money. So that was a very odd action normally the reason to keep those machines and plants in place or in the event of a Katrina or a 9-11, or the election or the COVID crisis, removing those is thinning out the Postal Service's ability to redirect mail in the event of an act of an incident like that. The blue boxes were maybe the most interesting of all, though, those were not part of ongoing claims. To my knowledge. As a matter of fact, Secretary Mnuchin wanted that done. His study of the Postal Service asked that it be done. I asked the Postal Service about it and they said it wouldn't save anything and there would be no reason to remove those. David Williams: The service scores are probably the best objective measure and those are significantly off. Where even though there's less mail, it's moving more slowly. Much more slowly. That's strange and disturbing. Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) I also want to follow up on your comment today about Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Is the Postal Service under the Treasury Department. David Williams: I know that, I certainly know that the terms and conditions that originally came over moved all the important decision making from the board to him. I don't know the present case. I don't know presently if that was successful or unsuccessful. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): Did you participate in any interviews of other candidates for Postmaster General at this time round? David Williams: I did. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): How many candidates were interviewed, do you know? David Williams: I'm gonna have to estimate but I believe it was in the low teens. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): Were any of the other candidates qualified for the job as far as you could tell, did they all need to be assisted in their answers? The way you describe it where a member of the Board of Governors like helped them complete their answers as with Mr. DeJoy. David Williams: There was nothing like that. There were good candidates. Rep. Andy Levin (MI): And so Mr. DeJoy was really the only candidate who stood out to you as someone who was not qualified or capable, or in any event, he stood out. David Williams: I would say that, I would say that's correct. News Conference: , U.S. Capitol, August 18, 2020 News Conference: , White House, The Washington Post, August 12, 2020 Virtual Summit: , The Hill, May 21, 2020 Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Feb 7, 2017 Witnesses: Megan J. Brennan: Postmaster General Robert Taub: Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission Lori Rectanus: Direction or Physical Infrastructure issues at the US Gov’t Accountability Office Arthur Sackler: Manager at the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service Fredric Rolando: President of the Transcript: Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD): Taking all these requirements and trends together, the Postal Service reported a net loss of $5.3 billion for fiscal year 2016, which represents a 10th consecutive year of net losses. We have repeatedly discussed the deteriorating financial condition at the Postal Service in this committee, but the situation is now worsened by unprecedented lack of any Senate-confirmed members on the Postal Service’s Board of Governors. Because many key management decisions are reserved by statute to the Senate-confirmed board members, there are many actions, such as establishing rates, class, and fees for products, that the Postal Service simply cannot take now. Fredric Rolando: Over the past decade, postal employees have worked diligently to restructure operations, cut costs, and sharply increase productivity, in response to technological change and the Great Recession. Despite the loss of more than 200,000 jobs, we’ve managed to preserve our networks and to maintain our capacity to serve the nation. But only Congress can address our biggest financial challenge: the unique and unsustainable burden to pre-fund future retiree health benefits decades in advance. No other enterprise in the country faces such a burden, which was imposed by legislation in 2006. The expense of this mandate has accounted for nearly 90% of the Postal Service’s reported losses since 2007. Without a change in the law, the mandate will cost $6 billion this year alone. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 26, 2013 Witnesses: John Hegarty: National President of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union Dean Baker: Co-Director Center for Economic & Policy Research Transcript: Sen. Tom Carper: Much as the auto industry is right sized itself over the last half dozen or so years, what the Postal Service is attempting to do is to right size the enterprise, and we're trying to not be an impediment. But actually to help you do that. If you go back a dozen or so years ago, your workforce i think is Postmaster General said is about 800,000 people today, it's just under 500,000. If you go back about a half dozen years ago, my recollection is the number of postal processing plants in our country was about 600. We're now down to roughly three, three and a quarter. Sen. Tom Coburn: If you look at the private sector. The benefits per employee, average $10,589. At the state and local government level, it's $16,857. At the federal level, it's $41,791. And that's a significant fact we need to bear in mind as we ask the postal service to be competitive. John Hegarty: 300 processing plants have been eliminated in the past five years, and the employee compliment has been reduced by more than 300,000. Postal employees have already contributed to and sacrificed for the financial turnaround of the Postal Service. My members have had their wages frozen for the past two years, and employee contributions have increased for both health insurance and retirement. About 20% of postal employees including more than 5000 members of my union are working in non career part time jobs at reduced pay rates. And thousands of employees have been involuntarily excessed or transferred to other work locations often hundreds of miles away and have had to uproot their homes and their families because of the closings and consolidations of the postal network. Last week, the Postmaster General testified that the Postal Service has reduced cost by $16 billion during the past few years. As a labor intensive service industry, it should be clear that most of those savings have come from postal employees. Dean Baker: Just think it is striking I had occasion to be in on one of the mediation hearings back in 2011. I looked at the Postal Service's projection at that time, they're projecting revenue falling to just 63 billion as of 2013. And continuing to decline over the rest of the decade. So it'd be about 59 billion by the end of the decade, we're now looking at revenue of 66 billion. So in fact, there's been really a quite remarkable turnaround. We're looking at a system that does look as though it's quite viable, apart from these retiree obligations. So it's not as though we have an ailing system on its last legs. It looks very much as though we have a system that in principle is viable. That's suffering very much from I would say at least, an excessive burden in requiring it to pre fund at a very rapid rate. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, August 6, 2009 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General David Williams - Inspector General the US Postal Service Transcript: David Williams: The Postal accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the postal service to make 10 annual payments of $5 billion each in addition to the $20 billion already set aside for pre funding its retiree health benefits, the size of the $5 billion payments has little foundation and the current payment method is damaging to the financial viability of the Postal Service even in profitable times. The payment amounts were not actuarially based instead, the required payments were built to ensure that the Postal Act did not affect the federal budget deficit. This seems inexplicable since the Postal Service is not part of the federal budget, does not receive an appropriation for operations and makes its money from the sale of postal services. The payment amounts are fixed through 2016 and do not reflect the funds earnings. Estimates of the Postal Service liability as a result of changing economic circumstances, declining staff size or developments in health Care and pharmaceutical industries. The payments do not take into account the Postal Service's ability to pay and are too challenging even in normal times. John Potter: We hit our maximum number of career employees in late 1999. We had 803,000 career employees. We have been addressing the diversion of mail to electronics and have been managing our workforce very aggressively. Today we have 630,000 career employees. So we've managed to reduce that working with unions and within the contracts reduced by over 170,000 people, the number of employees we have. John Potter: And when I look around the world and see what other posts are, if you're in Australia and you want to update your driver's license, renew it, you go to the post office. If you're in Italy and you go into a bank, more than likely going to the post office, if you're in Japan and you want to buy insurance, more than likely you're going to the post office. And if you're in France and you have a cell phone issue, more than likely, again, you're going to the post office. Hearing: , Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, May 13, 2002 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General Transcript: John Potter: Today, we're experiencing extraordinary declines in mail volume, and resulting losses and revenues. Our projected volume declined for this year, we'll be more than 6 billion pieces of mail below last year. That's the largest volume decline ever experienced in a single year. Despite this decline, we are working to reduce our net loss below our earlier projections. To achieve this, we will reduce the number of career employees through attrition by 20,000 people this year. In addition, we will cut over 60 million work hours compared to last year and we are postponing program expenditures and delaying capital investments. The net effect of these actions will reduce current planned expenses by $2 billion. Those savings combined with a $1 billion dollar infusion of revenue from the early implementation of the rate case means our projected net loss for the year will be in the range of $1.5 billion, instead of what easily could have been a loss of $4.5 billion. John Potter: Essentially, the Postal Service could become profit driven, generate returns to finance capital projects, instead of increasing our debt load, introduced flexible pricing based on market demand, and develop better relationships with our employees. These and other long term changes to transform the postal service can only come with legislative reforms. John Potter: Today we have the same number of people in the postal service as we had in 1991. But since 1991, the number of possible deliveries we have, the number of households and businesses that we've served, has gone up 15.4 million. So every day, six days a week, we're at 15.4 million additional doors than we were in 1991. And we have some 33 billion more pieces of mail. John Potter: There is a process today to pay down our debt, but there's some $12 billion that we may have by the end of this fiscal year. It's built into the rate process. It's prior year loss recovery. Today, there is no vehicle to consider the health benefit liabilities, or the retirement obligations as part of the rate setting process. So, the vehicles that are available to us today are basically to cut our costs. Hearing: , CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, April 5, 2002 Speaker: John Potter - Postmaster General Transcript: John Potter: For some people, the preferred model is privatization. But this group, the notion of equitable service is not relevant. The simple straightforward answer goes back to what our stakeholders, the people, we reached out to told us. Overwhelmingly, they told us, there was no support for privatizing the nation's mail service. A privatized model would focus on profit. The results might be delivery standards and prices dictated by where a person lives, or where a business is located. Metropolitan areas where volume is greater, would receive better or cheaper service than a rural community. The privilege might stand to benefit from privatization, but not everyday people. It might be fine for a lawyer in Los Angeles, but not for the sales clerk in Omaha. Let me be very clear on this point. Do not, do not intend to recommend that the Postal Service be privatized. I do not believe that the American people want a privatized mail delivery system in this country today. People speak of digital divide, we don't need a delivery divide. John Potter: Commercial government enterprise. This is our recommended model, the one we believe would put the postal service on a more businesslike footing, while keeping it dedicated to its mission of universal service. But it's also a model that is markedly different from what we have today. For example, instead of breaking even, our financial goal would be to generate reasonable returns. Earnings would finance capital projects, instead of having to resort to increasing our debt load. Retained earnings would carry us through tough economic times, instead of always resorting to rate increases. In addition, this model will allow us to leverage our vast retail and delivery assets to develop new revenue streams. Our 38,000 retail offices, and our national door to door delivery networks could be made available to private enterprise as a joint profit making venture. As a commercialized government enterprise, we could introduce flexible pricing. Prices for postal products would still be subject to regulatory review. But we would have the flexibility to adjust prices based on market demand. Next, as a labor intensive organization, with 75% of our operating expenses going to labor, this business model will allow us to explore a more progressive way to make collective bargaining work for all parties. Finally, this model will give us the needed flexibility to increase access and convenience to our customers. We will be able to add more locations with long arounds management without the flexibility to close a number of non performing retail outlets and we will be able to invest in new facilities and services. And enter into alliances and ventures with related private sector companies after due diligence was completed. Essentially, this commercialized Postal Service will give us the management tools that are available to private corporations to improve service to our customers manage costs more efficiently, and leverage our assets to generate new revenue opportunities. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD219: Oversights of CARES

16 augusti 2020 | 107 min

COVID still rages, CARES Act provisions have expired, and Congress is on another vacation. In this episode, by piecing together information discovered in six CARES Act oversight hearings, find out what problems weren’t solved by the CARES Act, what happened to the CARES Act money, and get an idea of what is possible in the next COVID relief bill... If there is one. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law, WTF is the Federal Reserve?, Bills Signed April 24, 2020. Doubled the Paycheck Protection Program Books By Aaron Glantz, October 15, 2019 Articles/Documents Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 13, 2020 Article: By Cezary Podkul, The Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, August 10, 2020 Article: By Taryn Luna, Los Angeles Times, August 7, 2020 Article: By Julia Kagan, Investopedia, July 31, 2020 Article: By Pien Huang and Selena Simmons-Duffin, npr, July 31, 2020 Article: By Peter Whoriskey, The Washington Post, July 27, 2020 Article: By Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle, July 14, 2020 Article: By Emily Stewart, recode, July 13, 2020 Article: By Jim Saksa, Roll Call, June 26, 2020 Article: By Jessica Camille Aguirre, Vanity Fair, June 26, 2020 Article: By Monica Nickelsburg, Geek Wire, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, May 20, 2020 Article: By Isaac Scher, Business Insider, May 20, 2020 Article: By Jeanna Smialek, The New York Times, May 12, 2020 Article: By Charisse Jones, USA Today, April 29, 2020 Article: By Thomas Franck, CNBC, April 3, 2020 Article: By Lee Fang, The Intercept, March 4, 2020 Article: By Jonathan Jacobs, Jennifer Press, John Schrader, Accounting Today, November 12, 2019 Article: by Yves Smith, naked capitalism, July 18, 2019 Article: by Judy Maltz, Haaretz, June 19, 2019 Article: by Bess Levin, Vanity Fair, May 23, 2019 Article: by Victoria Guida, Politico, April 18, 2019 Article: by Lillian Rizzo, The Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2017 Article: by Peter Byrne, Bohemian, February 8, 2017 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, January 19, 2017 Article: by Bess Levin, Vanity Fair, January 18, 2017 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, January 3, 2017 Article: by Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, September 25, 2015 Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, May 5, 2015 Article: by DEBRA CASSENS WEISS, ABA Journal, November 30, 2009 Additional Resources Report: , Small Business Administration, 2020 Homepage: , 2020 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, August 7, 2020 Witnesess: Eric Rosengren - President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Gwen Mills - Secretary Treasurer of Unite Here Lauren Anderson - Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel of the Bank Policy Institute Transcript: Bharat Ramamurti: Four months ago, Congress gave the Treasury Department half a trillion dollars to stabilize the economy. The Treasury quickly pledged 75 billion of those dollars to the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program for small and mid sized companies. After taking three months to set up the program, the Fed has now been operating it for about a month. In that time, it has supported only 18 loans for a total of $104 million. That is 0.017% of the $600 billion lending capacity that the Fed touted for the program in April. Eric Rosengren: Main Street program is designed to facilitate lending to small and medium sized businesses and nonprofits that have suffered disruptions and provides credit support for entities that have temporary cash flow problems due to the pandemic, and that given the uncertain outlook may have difficulty obtaining credit. It can provide a bridge as loans have no interest or principal payments in the first year and no principal payments until year three. Eric Rosengren: Mainstreet relies on lenders to underwrite loans and keep skin in the game by banks retaining 5% of the loan. Eric Rosengren: This facility is very different than some of the other traditional kinds of facilities that central banks operate during a time of crisis. So most of our facilities operate through markets, market securities, you can purchase them very easily through the market. They clear usually in a couple days depending on the security. So it's relatively easy to quickly purchase a large number of securities and hold those securities over time. This facility is a facility we didn't have during the financial crisis, and really tries to get to a different segment of the population, which is those businesses that are bigger than the PPP program was designed for and smaller than what the corporate facilities are designed for. Bharat Ramamurti: This program has been a failure, and the basic reason for that is that the Fed can only offer loans. The data show that companies, even distressed companies aren't looking for loans. Bharat Ramamurti: By law, the Fed can only support loans and more loans are not the answer here for most companies. And this is a giant hole in our economic response to the crisis. Congress helps small businesses through the PPP, Congress help large companies that are big enough to issue bonds by empowering the Fed to purchase corporate bonds and reduce the cost of borrowing. But the only thing that the government has offered all these companies in between is the Main Street program and it's just not working. And these mid sized companies employ 45 million people and represent a third of private sector GDP. So look, I don't think continuing to tweak this program is going to work. I think Congress needs to act to provide direct support to mid sized firms and for that money to come with real strings attached to the money that benefits working people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bharat Ramamurti: The first version of the Mainstreet program required companies to say in writing that they needed the loan quote, due to the exigent circumstances presented by the covid 19 pandemic. Advocates for the oil and gas industry pushed to eliminate that requirement, presumably because many oil and gas firms were struggling before COVID and couldn't satisfy the requirement. And again in the final version, the Fed eliminated that requirement. President Rosengren again, out of the more than 2000 public comments that the Fed received, are you aware of a single one outside the oil and gas industry that requested that the Fed remove this important requirement? Eric Rosengren: In the discussions I've been involved in, we do not discuss specific industries, we discuss how we can provide a broad based financing scheme. Bharat Ramamurti: Okay. Again, I appreciate that. But again, I reviewed the public comments and there wasn't a single one that requested this change, only the oil and gas lobby had requested. Bharat Ramamurti: It's not supposed to be changing the rules of these programs so that the President's favorite companies can get access to billions of dollars in public money. In fact, it is illegal for the Fed to structure these lending programs to help specific companies avoid bankruptcy. I urge this commission to further investigate this issue, including by requesting all communications on this topic between the Fed and the Energy Secretary, the Treasury Secretary and any representatives of the oil and gas industry. Gwen Mills: My name is Gwen Mills. I'm Secretary Treasurer of the hospitality union, Unite Here. Well, I will focus on our members experiences. The recommendations I make are supported by the AFLCIO representing 55 National unions and 12 million workers. Our 300,000 members work primarily in hotel, casino, food service and airline catering industries, all sectors that are heavily dependent upon travel and tourism, before the cares act became law 90% of our members were laid off. Today, 85% remain unemployed. Gwen Mills: At the heart is the question of requiring employers to maintain employment as a condition of federal assistance. The Main Street lending program requires only commercially reasonable efforts to maintain employees in spite of clear congressional intent. Treasury and the Federal Reserve said they will not enforce even that. Gwen Mills: We've seen how powerful lobbyists transform the paycheck protection and payroll support programs into subsidies for real estate investors. We've identified 200 outlets where we have members that received PPP loans, and they haven't protected paychecks or healthcare. One company, Omni hotels, received 34 PPP loans worth at least $53 million. Meanwhile, Omni hotels in Boston, Providence and New Haven were shut down in March and is unclear when they will reopen. In Providence, the company then cut off medical benefits in violation of their union agreement. There are many similar stories, what they reveal is how a powerful industry turned to program designed to keep workers on payroll into one that could keep hotel owners current on their mortgages. Gwen Mills: Lobbyists claim if the Fed doesn't rescue CMBS borrowers hotels will default and workers won't have jobs to come back to. But that is not our experience. And this isn't the first time hotel owners got themselves in trouble using these inflexible loans. After the financial crisis, there were scores of defaults across the country. But defaults and foreclosures didn't lead to closed hotels. Hotel workers who were used to seeing absentee owners come and go understand that jobs are driven by occupancy and only ending the pandemic can fix that. Gwen Mills: Program designers at the Fed take the CARES Act mandate to heart. What if credit terms were loosened, so long as, and here's the important part, so long as there were airtight requirements, not incentives, not recommendations, but requirements that recipients keep workers on payroll, and is what the PPP could have done if it hadn't been hijacked by the real estate industry. Bharat Ramamurti: In your experience and the experience of your members, does providing financial support to businesses help workers without express and enforceable requirements, that businesses actually use that aid to support workers. Gwen Mills: No. Time and again, in many different programs, without enforceable requirements, support to businesses doesn't help workers. Bharat Ramamurti: So of the $500 billion that Congress gave to the Treasury, in the CARES Act in March, there's currently more than $200 billion sitting unused and uncommitted. If you were to use that money to develop a program that would be most helpful to your members, what would you do with it? Gwen Mills: The two things that matter are healthcare and wages. So we would fund Cobra payments so that we could continue health care and then give direct support to workers. Bharat Ramamurti: And thank you. And one final question about this. Did the Treasury Department ever reach out to your union as it was designing this lending program that was ostensibly about helping workers? Gwen Mills: No. Gwen Mills: Our great concern about the Main Street lending program is that the hotel industry is seeking changes so that they can use the program to pay their CMBS mortgages. Rep. Donna Shalala (FL): The main street lending program, banks employ their own underwriting standards to loan applications. Does that mean that banks are making loans under the program that they would have made any way absent the Fed program? And if so, is the mainstream lending program providing any benefit to borrowers at all? Lauren Anderson: Thank you for your question. In terms of the loans that are being made, I think they're quite specific in terms of the circumstances because you're absolutely right, a borrower who can meet a bank's basic underwriting standards is typically finding out that there is a product that is more suited to them, given their credit needs, so for example, maybe a term loan really is not what they need, and they really need something more like a flexible working capital facility. So our banks are actually, many times finding better solutions for these borrowers when they inquire about the program. Rep. French Hill (AR): Owners of CMBS securities are mostly pension funds and people's retirement accounts. And so they're all benefited by trying to get capital into the industry and get people hired back and reopened. Bharat Ramamurti: I think just to sum up quickly, I think we've actually seen a remarkable consensus emerge at this hearing, which is that the main street program as is currently designed is failing. And the representative of the banking industry told us that we aren't seeing meaningful demand for loans right now from their clients. The representative of small and mid sized businesses told us that the program wouldn't help his members as is currently designed, and Miss Mills representing hundreds of thousands of workers told us that the main street program hasn't helped a single worker and isn't likely to. I don't question the hard work of President Rosengren and the Fed staff, but more loans are not going to solve this crisis. Struggling small and mid sized companies can't take on more debt right now. So the only tool in the Feds belt is the wrong one. This program was given $75 billion and months to succeed. It didn't and it can't. It's time to stop tinkering around the edges with adjustments to loan eligibility and loan terms when the fundamental problem is with the nature of the loans themselves. It's time for Congress to step back in so that we can actually save small and mid sized businesses and when it does needs to tie the assistance to meaningful enforceable protections for workers and not just hand money to executives and trust them to take care of workers interests. Thank you Mr. Chair. Gwen Mills: The extension of the the wages that the congressman mentioned has been appreciated, although it is now ending. That is problematic. But there has not been an extension of healthcare, so and even in a case where we have some healthcare negotiated companies like the fountain blue gun, are not abiding by that. Interview: , Axios, HBO, August 4, 2020 Hearing: , House Committee on Small Business, July 17, 2020 Witnesess: Steven Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary Transcript: Steven Mnuchin: I think this time we need to have a revenue test and make sure that money is going to businesses that have significant revenue declines. Steven Mnuchin: If there were financial conditions that states had coming into this, it's not the federal government's role to bail them out of that. Now we have through Main Street, excuse me through the Fed facilities, we have provided lending facilities to the states and municipalities. But the issue of taxing authority... The federal government has taxing authority and the states have taxing authority. So where there are lost revenues, I think there is a fairness issue of how those get allocated across the country. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 16, 2020 Witnesess: Marcia Griffin - Founder and President of Homefree-USA Donnell Williams - President, National Association of Real Estate Brokers Alys Cohen - Staff Attorney, National Consumer Law Center Transcript: Marcia Griffin: Tons of counselors assist homeowners who are improperly denied a forbearance. We have. We have seen a troubling concentration of this issue with veteran loans. We're also seeing homeowners who may have recently completed a loan application they've also been denied a borrowers who have just missed a payment in March or February, they've also been denied. Marcia Griffin: There is a frustratingly large number of homeowners who are unemployed but are still being told that lump sum payments are due at the end of the forbearance. Donnell Williams: You also need to have data collection. Services need to supply this information, this data to the CFPB and to Congress. I just had a borrower in Irvington, New Jersey, another one in Orange Township, New Jersey, tell me that their servicemen, like Congressman Green, say that they only gave them three months and that the whole balance will be due in 90 days. Marcia Griffin: Well, let me stop you, do you think we should have penalties for some servicers who violate the law that we have in the Heroes Act and would require a lump sum payments like that? Donnell Williams: I do believe so. Because they're roadblocking, they're stopping, clogging it up so that we can have progress. Alys Cohen: Well, in terms of the complaints that you're hearing, we do have some good protections in the cares Act and the federal regulators really need to step up their game and do much greater oversight of the servicers. In terms of the CFPB, they appear to spend most of their time relaxing regulations for servicers and providing advice for homeowners. So homeowners need our protection. Alys Cohen: What we've saw in the last crisis and what we continue to see is that as you said, Mr. Lynch, servicers on private mortgages are beholden to the guidelines from the investors. And so what we'd like to see is a safe harbor for mortgage servicers from investor liability, so that they can provide loan modifications along the lines that the GSCs and FHA and the other government agencies can provide. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets, July 14, 2020 Witnesess: Dr. William Spriggs - Chief Economist at the AFL-CIO and Professor of Economics at Howard University Neil Bradley - Executive Vice President and Chief of Policy Officer at the US Chamber of Commerce Transcript: Dr. William Spriggs: Workers do not have the sense that they have sick leave or the assurance that their employers will support them if they are sick. We see a very frightening share of women who show up to work and report that they have symptoms because they fear losing their job. Dr. William Spriggs: It is vital for Congress to monitor money given to corporations under COVID, to make sure that workers are safe, that they will not face retaliation if they complain about safety, that they have sick leave so that they can report illness and stay home and not infect other workers. This is vital for the economy. It's vital to be prudent about the money that we are sending to these companies. We're not going to win this economic war until we win the war against the disease. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): I do want to comment about the importance of sick leave. We should be providing sick leave so people can stay home if they're sick, kids are sick. That's critical to getting this disease under control. We cannot limit that requirement only to those employers who feel generous. We can't limit it to only to those employers who are between 50 employees and 500 employees, as presently as now. And while we should require it of those who get money pursuant to these facilities, it auto glide all employers even those that are not borrowing from the federal government. Neil Bradley: With respect to individuals, the $600 was implemented because of the need for speed. We know as a general principle, you should not pay more for someone to not work and you pay them to work that creates distortions in the labor market. President Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisers is former NSC director has joined on a bipartisan basis with officials from the Bush administration suggesting a much better approach, one we endorse it the US Chamber to target unemployment benefits much more closely to what an individual earned when they were working. It shouldn't be true that you earn more but you also shouldn't earn substantially less. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: As an investor when you invest in a riskier venture, would it be fair to say that an investor investing in that risky venture would be compensated with a higher return of risk? Because of the risk associated with that financial instrument correctly? Dr. Camille Bussett: Generally, that is that is correct. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And now, is that same kind of compensation true for workers, in that are workers that are risking their lives, in meatpacking grocery stores, are there are they being paid? What is their compensation look like? Or do you see hazard pay, which is supposed to be a form of compensation for risk, a norm in your view. Dr. Camille Bussett: So low wage workers particularly they said work in the US industries that you mentioned and thank you for the question. Congress, woman Ocasio-Cortez are consistently paid very low wages for these kinds of essential jobs that put meat, poultry and vegetables on our table. That has not changed during the pandemic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: And so in your assessment, hazard pay is not the norm. Dr. Camille Bussett: Hazard pay is not the norm. There have been some corporations which have added some hazard pay and then have since the economy has started to reopen, and various states have rescinded that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: So, really compensation for risk. It's not that all people in our economy are compensated for risk just that a certain narrow class is compensated for risk of capital but not necessarily risk of life. Hearing: , House Committee on Financial Services, June 30, 2020 Witnesess: Steven Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Transcript: Steven Mnuchin: The cares act also granted Treasury the authority to provide 454 billion to support Federal Reserve lending facilities under Section 13-3. Since March 17, using funds available, I have approved a number of Federal Reserve programs. The commercial paper program, primary dealer program, the money market mutual program, the primary market corporate credit facility, the secondary facility, the main street facility, municipal facility and the PPP lending facility. We've committed approximately 200 billion and to support these the announcements of these programs have helped unlock markets and promote much needed access to liquidity. We have over 250 billion remaining to create or expand programs as needed. Jerome Powell: After lowering the federal funds rate to essentially zero. Our actions so far fall into four categories, stabilizing Treasury and agency MBS markets, money market and liquidity, liquidity and funding measures, direct efforts to support the flow of credit in the economy and targeted regulatory measures to support those efforts. Jerome Powell: Without access to credit, families could be forced to cut back on necessities or even lose their homes. Businesses could be forced to downsize or close resulting in further losses of jobs and incomes and worsening the downturn. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Secretary Mnuchin, I'd like to ask you about a very troubling oversight issue. As you know, I'm the Chair now of the Oversight Committee and I take these matters very seriously, and I hope that you do too. In the CARES Act, we created the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, or PRAC, which is a committee of independent inspectors general that is charged with overseeing all of the money spent in the CARES Act, and identifying waste, fraud and abuse. Last month, the General Counsel's Office in Treasury issued a legal opinion that questioned PRAC's authority to oversee trillions of dollars of CARES Act spending. To put it bluntly, this legal analysis is so bad that it borders on bad faith. The opinion claimed that no evidence that Congress did not intend for the PRAC to have oversight authority over anything and the first half of the CARES Act, including the PPP program, and any of the fed's lending facilities are the 150 billion in funding for state and local governments. So I would say Secretary Mnuchin, that this interpretation is wrong, that it is just plain wrong. Senator Gary Peters and I proposed and authored this section of the law, the PRAC Act, and I was heavily involved in negotiating those provisions in the CARES Act. And I'm telling you that Congress's intent was for the PRAC to oversee all of the spending in the CARES Act, not just one half of the CARES Act, but all of it. That was our intent. And that was what the bill said explicitly. The interpretation from your general counsel's office is already causing problems, because it's hindering the practability to monitor how the states are spending their cares act money. So now Secretary Mnuchin, I would say that we have worked very productively together and in good faith negotiations on the Beneficial Ownership bill and, and other bills before Congress. So I hope that you'll take my concerns about this erroneous legal opinion seriously. And so this is what I would like to ask today. I'd like you to commit to interpreting this section of the CARES Act as Congress intended, with the PRAC's oversight authorities applying to all of the cares act spending. I think this is a small step, but a very important one that you can take to show that you're serious about the oversight of the trillions of dollars in the CARES Act. Steven Mnuchin: Well, thank you. And I appreciate your comments. And I assure you, we are very much committed to working with the Oversight Committees on transparency. Now, as it relates to this, I can assure you it was not in bad faith. I'm happy to have our office follow up with you. It has to do with a technical issue of recipients reporting as it relates to the issue of monitoring state spending, I'm more than happy to put the PRAC in touch with our Inspector General, who has primary oversight and make sure that whatever information specifically the PRAC wants on the states that we accommodate. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Well, I would say that that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is will you commit to interpreting the PRAC's oversight authorities as applying to all of the Cares Act spending? That was our intent, I wrote that section of the law, that was what Congress wanted. There's no problem with the interpretation it's very clear and explicit, will you commit to allowing the oversight that was in the bill. Steven Mnuchin: I appreciate you wrote that portion. I would also say I appreciate I had very direct discussions with people in the Senate about various different oversight. That's why we agreed to a new Oversight Committee. With full transparency, we agreed to provide information that was not required under 13-3. So we have full transparency. And again, I'm happy to follow up with you on the specific concerns as to which different entities should receive what information. I think it's important that there is not bureaucratic overlap. But again, let me emphasize if the PRAC needs certain information, we will try to do what we can to accommodate it. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY): Well, I'm very disappointed with that answer, and I guess we'll have to pursue a legislative solution. It was very clear the intent of Congress is that PRAC would have oversight of all of the cares spending. I yield back. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): Chairman Powell, back on March 12, I sent you a letter urging that you prohibit stock buybacks by the banks you have done so. Thank you very much. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA): One issue, Chairman Powell, for the main street lending program that is particularly relevant to commercial real estate, is that if they get a loan from you, they violate the loan covenants that they have in their existing mortgage. I look forward to working with you on that. One possible solution is the bill that I submitted. And we've had hearings on in this committee, the Business Borrowers Protection Act. Certainly getting a loan on a program that we've offered authorized because of the COVID crisis should not trigger the and make it a pre-existing mortgage immediately due and payable. Jerome Powell: We are not looking for additional authority under 13-3. Our authority is of course to lend to solvent institutions and in programs of broad applicability and any company in any sector that meets those tests can can borrow one of our facilities. Rep. Bill Posey (FL): Some of our businesses, including again the hotels, are warning that their inability to make payments is threatening the servicing of commercial backed securities. And I just wonder if you can bring us up to date on the status of the CMBS market? Steven Mnuchin: Well, as I just mentioned, one of the problems of the CMBS market is that there are very strict contractual obligations. And that's why one of the things I do think we need to look at in the next CARES Act is additional funding for these industries that are the hardest hit. Steven Mnuchin: We have had inquiries about the issue of garnishment. And we agree from a policy standpoint that there should have been no garnishment. Unfortunately, that's something we need to address in the next CARES Act if we do additional direct payments, because there are certain state laws that were not overridden in the existing CARES Act. My understanding that's a state issue and not a federal issue. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): But think about, think about the cruelty of the policy. Wouldn't you want to? Steven Mnuchin: As I said, I agree with you on the level. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): Couldn't you all issue a blanket... Steven Mnuchin: We've asked our legal department to unfortunately we can't and that's one of the things we would want to fix in the next CARES Act. So we agree with you from the policy standpoint. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO): Now under the main street lending program, you reduced the minimum loan threshold from 1 million to 250,000. And then by expanding the program to nonprofits with more than 50 employees, however many small businesses may not need 250,000. Mr. Chairman, has the Fed considered eliminating the minimum loan threshold all together? Jerome Powell: We have not considered eliminating it yet. Of course, we're just now getting rolling with loans, as you know, so we can once we get up and running, look at lowering it again, but you get into a very different kind of lending when you're down, lower. These are really personal loans rather than business loans. They're generally guaranteed by the business operator, and we could look at that but that would be something we'd look at once we get up and running. Jerome Powell: The objective of everything we're doing everything. Every single thing we're doing is to take the 25 million people whose working lives have been disrupted and create a situation in which they have the best chance to go back to their old job or to get a new job. That includes all the facilities that we're doing. That's the overriding goal of what we're doing. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): As you know, it's hard for me to let a hearing go without talking about CECL, so we're gonna try it one more time. In March of this year, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and LCC issued an interim rule to delay for two years the estimated impact on regulatory capital CECL, followed by a three year phase in. In addition, the CARES Act included an option delay in CECL implementation until end 2020, or the end of the pandemic, which 25% of typical entities actually opted for. Part of the Treasury is also conducting study - What's the impact of CECL I hope? We were directed to do that. And most recently, my colleagues and I sent a bipartisan letter F stock urging for delay in CECL implementation for all entities until 2022. So that every entity, both banks and non banks, which were not included through the cares act on the same footing and Treasury can conduct this study with the input of a real life scenario that we have ongoing today. Given the actions by Congress and the potential regulators should we delay CECL as I and my colleagues have called for and should the Treasury examine the real life scenario we've gone through when conducting their study? Mr. Mnuchin? Steven Mnuchin: I think that should be seriously considered. And yes, we are working on the study. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): The President issued an executive order with regards to each agency going through and looking at all the rules, regulations, that were either waive declined, change, whatever, if they don't work now, should we continue them down the road when we get out of this mess. And so I assume everybody is doing that. And this would, this particular accounting principle would seem to fall in that area of we need to be looking at this as something down the road we need to get rid of in it's entirety, Mr. Chairman Powell, would you like to comment on this as well? Jerome Powell: I would agree. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Because I think there's a time and place for rules, regulations or time in place that if nonfunctioning, we need to get rid of them and start over. Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI): But what we do know is from looking at history, is we need to get the economy moving again. Now the question is, is how, whether it's getting kids back to school, as some have suggested, because if you can't get kids into school, that's not going to then free up those parents to be available to work. Anecdotally in my area, I know that manufacturers and service companies are having a very difficult time getting enough workers to come in to complete a full contingent, a line workers for example, or to get a full shift filled. There's various reasons some have debated about the $600 additional per week kicker as being a bit of a disincentive. But nonetheless, we know that we have to address those folks who really truly are not able to get a job and how do we distinguish from those that are just deciding not to take that job? One of the things that I have proposed is something called the Patriot bonus patriot bonus would be a 50% tax credit to any company that would give a per hour bump to their employees or a weekly bonus to their employees or even a one time bonus to their employees to incentivize them to come off of that unemployment insurance system and get back engaged in the workforce. And I think it's critical that we that we do that. Rep. Bill Huizenga (MI): What do you want to tell them and the rest of Joe and Jane 401k that have their small investments in the markets that are there, frankly, to help them as they approach retirement? What assurances can we give them about the economy? Steven Mnuchin: Well, I want to tell them and all the other people that we are going to work with Congress to make sure we can do whatever we can do to get everybody back to work, who lost their job to COVID. And I'm also extremely optimistic about the research that is being done on vaccines and virals. And us combating this terrible disease. Thank you. Steven Mnuchin: In many of these cases, these companies don't need more debt. They need support. So one of the things we will want to look at in the next CARES Act, as I said, is additional support for these hardest hit industries. As the Chair has said, there's a difference between lending and spending. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): And we also know that at the end of July, the pandemic unemployment insurance payments cease, as it's currently written. We know that a number of the moratorium on evictions and foreclosures begin to cease. And the eight weeks provided under the PPP, certainly for those initial takers of the loans start to run out. So I see a brick wall at the end of July. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, June 26, 2020 Witnesess: Gene Dodaro - Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office Transcript: Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Tell me, how did it happen, that these hotels and these restaurants, were able to identify each of their installations under 500 people that they could get paid, get a loan for all of them. How did that happen? Gene Dodaro: My understanding of that is that that was a change that was made in the legislation at the last minute to allow them to be able to do that. That was part of the original legislation. My understanding...If I'm wrong, I'll provide a correction of the answer for the record, but that allowed that industry that applied if they had 500 people or less employees per location. Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Did the SBA sign off on that? Gene Dodaro: Pardon me? Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Did SBA sign off on that? Gene Dodaro: I don't know their involvement in the legislation. I'm sure the administration did if the President signed the bill. Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): Do you think that basically undermined what the PPP was supposed to be about?Gene Dodaro: Well, I wouldn't second guess the Congress and what it did and what, in the legislation that it passed. So, I mean, I was assuming it was part of congressional intent if it's in the legislation. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): With the issue with regards to the stimulus checks going to people who shouldn't get them. You made a comment while ago about the social security's death master file. And it's something that you recommended, apparently for a number of years that we Congress have never done. In fact, the Trump administration has proposed in every single budget to give Treasury access to this, and we Congress have not done that. Is that roughly correct? Gene Dodaro: That's correct. And I know Treasury I've talked to Secretary Mnuchin about this and they... Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): So this problem could have been eliminated, and alleviated if we Congress had done our job and allowed this to happen in previous years. Gene Dodaro: That's a reasonable hypothesis. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO): Okay. Thank you very much for that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Gene Dodaro: Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): GAO also reported the Treasury and IRS sent nearly $1.4 billion in payments to 1.1 million dissidents, that is Americans who'd already died. And I'd also heard from some honest constituents who called up and said, we got this check for my wife or my husband who's no longer with us. IRS apparently was aware this was happening back in March, but didn't begin to correct it until months later. What's up with that? That's just shocking. How'd that happen? Gene Dodaro: Well, IRS is original determination was that the law required them to send a check to everybody who filed the return in 2018 or 19. And so they figured it would include those people. So they did it with foresight, that that's what they were supposed to do. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Wow. Okay. Just let me pause you there, because that seems to contradict common sense. In other words, because we said that it should go to everyone who filed taxes, they thought you'd go to people who had died right who had filed taxes. All right. What is the law? Because some people were saying, should we cash this check? Why would the government sending it to us? Gene Dodaro: Right. Yeah, no, no, I agree. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Well, what is the correct legal interpretation? Gene Dodaro: We believe Treasury's interpretation after that was that the intent was to help people who are affected by the situation which wouldn't include people who were deceased. So they stopped it at that point in time after IRS had made the first three payments. So we believe the correct interpretation now is they should not have been sent and our recommendation is to try to get as much of the money back as possible. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Ok. And they've changed that policy of sending checks to people who have died? Gene Dodaro: That's correct. Video: , Vic Dibitetto, April 16, 2020 Executive Producer Recommendations Article: By Yuta Kikuchi and Shinichi Takata, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Article: , Phys.Org, October 3, 2018 Article: By Andrew Glester, Physics World, June 11, 2018 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD218: Minerals are the New Oil

31 juli 2020 | 96 min

Rare earth minerals are essential ingredients for many of the technologies that are important today and will be key in the future. In this episode, we learn about a new global economy being created around rare minerals and how the United States can catch up to the commanding lead that China has established in dominating the mineral dependent industries. Executive Producer: Coffee Infused Nerd Executive Producer: David Dear Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes COVID-19 Testimony, The Brink of the Iran War, WTF is the Federal Reserve? The Democracies of Elliott Abrams, A Coup for Capitalism, Combating China, National Endowment for Democracy, Target Venezuela: Regime Change, State of War, Combatting Russia (NDAA 2018), Sanctions: Russia, North Korea, and Iran, Bombing Libya, The World Trade Organization: COOL? : Secret International Regulations, What Do We Want In Ukraine?, The Free Market vs. US, Bill Outline We will analyze supply and demand of minerals to avoid supply shortages, mitigate price volatility, and prepare for demand growth We will map and develop domestic resources of minerals Speed up the permitting process for mineral mining and new mineral manufacturing facilities Invest in workforce training for mineral exploration and development Transfer technology and information in international cooperation agreements Recycle critical minerals Develop alternatives to critical minerals Within 4 years of the date the bill is signed into law, a “comprehensive national assessment of each critical mineral” must be completed which identifies known quantities of each mineral using public and private information and an assessment of undiscovered mineral resources in the U.S. The information will be given to the public electronically Orders reports to be done on expediting permitting The Secretary of Energy would be required to conduct a research and development program to promote production, use, and recycling of critical minerals and to develop alternatives to critical minerals that are not found in abundance in the United States. The Secretary of Labor will be given almost two years to complete an assessment of the Untied States workforce capable of operating a critical minerals management industry Creates a grant program where the Secretary of Labor will give “institutions of higher eduction” money for up to 10 years to create critical minerals management programs, and to help pay for student enrolled in those programs. Authorizes, but does not appropriate, $5 million per year from 2020-2019 for that catalogs geologic and engineering data, maps, logs, and samples. This program was authorized at $30 million from 2006-2010. Authorizes, but does not appropriate, $50 million for fiscal years 2020-2019. Requires the Secretary of Energy to create a program for developing “advanced separation technologies” for the extraction and recovery of rare earth elements and minerals from coal. Authorizes, but does not appropriate, $23 million per year for 2020-2027. Articles/Documents Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, July 28, 2020 Article: By Ernest Scheyder, The Atlantic, July 25, 2020 Article: By By Shashank Bengali, Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2020 Article: By Ernest Scheyder, Reuters, July 21, 2020 Article: By Matthew Johnston, Investopedia, June 25, 2019 Article: by Hallie Gu and Dominique Patton, Reuters, May 13, 2020 Article: by Audrey Cher, CNBC, April 13, 2020 Article: by James Marshall, E&E News, April 27, 2020 Article: by Michael Sheetz, CNBC, April 6, 2020 Article: , White House, April 6, 2020 Article: By Kelly Pickerel, Solar Power World, July 3, 2018 Article: By Liselotte Mas, The Observers, September 25, 2019 Article: By Lily Kuo, The Guardian, September 23, 2019 Document: By Valerie Bailey Grasso, Specialist in Defense Acquisition, Congressional Research Service, December 23, 2013 Article: By Keith Bradsher, The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2005 Additional Resources Bill: , Congress.gov, November 25, 2015 Sound Clip Sources Speech: , Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary Of State, Yorba Linda, California, The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, U.S. Department of State, July 23, 2020 Transcript: 14:00 Mike Pompeo: The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes….And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier. And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades. 18:35 Mike Pompeo: It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. 21:30 Mike Pompeo: The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region. And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. 22:20 Mike Pompeo: So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage. Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies. We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. Speech: , U.S. Department of Justice, July 16, 2020 Transcript: 13:50: The People’s Republic of China is now engaged in an economic blitzkrieg—an aggressive, orchestrated, whole-of-government (indeed, whole-of-society) campaign to seize the commanding heights of the global economy and to surpass the United States as the world’s preeminent technological superpower. 14:15: A centerpiece of this effort is the Communist Party’s “Made in China 2025” initiative, a plan for PRC domination of high-tech industries like robotics, advanced information technology, aviation, and electric vehicles, and many other technologies . Backed by hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, this initiative poses a real threat to U.S. technological leadership. 15:20 “Made in China 2025” is the latest iteration of the PRC’s state-led, mercantilist economic model. For American companies in the global marketplace, free and fair competition with China has long been a fantasy. To tilt the playing field to its advantage, China’s communist government has perfected a wide array of predatory and often unlawful tactics: currency manipulation, tariffs, quotas, state-led strategic investment and acquisitions, theft and forced transfer of intellectual property, state subsidies, dumping, cyberattacks, and industrial espionage. 16:30: The PRC also seeks to dominate key trade routes and infrastructure in Eurasia, Africa, and the Pacific. In the South China Sea, for example, through which about one-third of the world’s maritime trade passes, the PRC has asserted expansive and historically dubious claims to nearly the entire waterway, flouted the rulings of international courts, built artificial islands and placed military outposts on them, and harassed its neighbors’ ships and fishing boats. 17:00: Another ambitious project to spread its power and influence is the PRC’s “Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative. Although billed as “foreign aid,” in fact these investments appear designed to serve the PRC’s strategic interests and domestic economic needs. For example, the PRC has been criticized for loading poor countries up with debt, refusing to renegotiate terms, and then taking control of the infrastructure itself, as it did with the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota in 2017. This is little more than a form of modern-day colonialism. 19:20: The PRC’s drive for technological supremacy is complemented by its plan to monopolize rare earth materials, which play a vital role in industries such as consumer electronics, electric vehicles, medical devices, and military hardware. According to the Congressional Research Service, from the 1960s to the 1980s, the United States led the world in rare earth production.[6] “Since then, production has shifted almost entirely to China,” in large part due to lower labor costs and lighter environmental regulation. The United States is now dangerously dependent on the PRC for these materials. Overall, China is America’s top supplier, accounting for about 80 percent of our imports. The risks of dependence are real. In 2010, for example, Beijing cut exports of rare earth materials to Japan after an incident involving disputed islands in the East China Sea. The PRC could do the same to us. 41:00: In a globalized world, American corporations and universities alike may view themselves as global citizens, rather than American institutions. But they should remember that what allowed them to succeed in the first place was the American free enterprise system, the rule of law, and the security afforded by America’s economic, technological, and military strength. Globalization does not always point in the direction of greater freedom. A world marching to the beat of Communist China’s drums will not be a hospitable one for institutions that depend on free markets, free trade, or the free exchange of ideas. There was a time American companies understood that. They saw themselves as American and proudly defended American values. Hearing: , U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, July 1, 2020 Witnesess: Dr. Tanvi Madan – Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution Dr. Evan Medeiros – Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies and Cling Family Distinguished Fellow, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Mr. Orville Schell – Arthur Ross Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society Ms. Meredith Sumpter – Head of Research Strategy and Operations, Eurasia Group Transcript: 21:15 Mr. Orville Schell: We were accustomed for many, many decades. And I've written this along. piece that's in the in the record, I think is my testimony. But engagement was the kind of center of how we related to China. And what were the presumptions of that? Well, the presumption was that this began in 1972, with Kissinger and Nixon going to China, that if we simply engage China across the board, that slowly, we would have a greater likelihood of more convergence rather than divergence that we would slowly morph out of the Cold War. And what is so extraordinary about the policy of engagement and I'm not one of the people who believes it was an erroneous policy. I do, however, believe it is a failed policy. But it was not erroneous, precisely because for eight presidential administrations United States government sought, and I think this is the height of leadership, to slowly bend the metal of China, to help China in to assist China, to morph out of its Maoist revolutionary period into something that was more soluble and convergent with the world as it existed outside, of the marketplace, international order, etc, etc. And I think if you look at all of these different administrations and go through them one by one, as I've done in the piece that's in your record, it is so striking to see how one president, Republican and Democrat came in after another, usually with a rather jaundiced view of China. Ultimately, they embraced the notion that we should try to engage China. So what happened? Well, I think just to cut to the chase here, what happened was that we have a regime in China now that's very different in its set of presumptions than that pathway that was laid out by Deng Xiaoping in 1978-79 of reform and opening. Without reform, without the presumption that China will both reform economically and politically to some degree, engagement has no basis. Because if you're not converging, then you're diverging. And if China actually is not trying to slowly evolve out of its own old Leninist, Maoist mold, sort of form of government, then it is in a sense, deciding that that is what it is and that is what its model is and that is what it's going to be projecting around the world. 55:45 Ms. Meredith Sumpter: Beijing decision makers believe that their state directed economic system is the foundation of the livelihood of their political system. In other words, we have been spending our energies trying to force China to change and China is not willing to change an economic model that it believes underpins its political longevity. 56:15 Ms. Meredith Sumpter: There are limits to how much we can force China to not be China. And China is working to try to create space for its own unique model within what has been up until just now with this competition, a largely Western based market consensus of how economic systems should work. 56:40 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Do we care if they have a more state directed model? I mean, what we care about is that like, This room is full of stuff that has Chinese inputs in it. What we really care about is do they send us stuff that is of high quality and cheap. Do we really care? You know, I mean, the Swedes have a much more state directed model than we do. So do we really care? Ms. Meredith Sumpter: We care so long as we don't see China's model as impairing our own ability to viably compete fairly. And so this gets to that level playing field. And ultimately, this is not about the political ideology driven Cold War of the past. But it's really a competition over which economic model will deliver greater prosperity and more opportunity to more people in the years ahead. So in the short term, there's all this focus on China's incredible rise and the success of its economic model. And it's not trying to export that model per se. It wants to create space for its model to coexist in this market led global economic system. Hearing: , U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee: Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation, June 30, 2020 Witnesses: Gregory Poling - Senior Fellow for Southeast Asia, Director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Dr. Oriana Sklylar Mastro: Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Assistant Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University Dr. Andrew Erickson: Professor of Strategy, China Maritime Studies Institute at the Naval War College and Visiting Scholar at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University Transcript: 21:45 Gregory Poling: Chinese interest and Chinese claims have expanded considerably over the decades. Prior to the 1990s, the South China Sea featured a dispute over islands. And then Beijing decided to declare straight baselines and internal waters around the paracels and more worryingly historic rights throughout the entirety of the South China Sea, claiming in some form all waters, all airspace, all seabed, in contravention of international law. Over the last decade, Beijing has become far more aggressive in pursuing that illegal claim. At the end of 2013, China embarked on a unprecedented campaign of artificial island building and military nation, which today allows China to deploy a 24/7 presence of naval Coast Guard and paramilitary forces throughout every inch of the nine dash line, slowly pushing its neighbors away from their legal rights, out of the waters guaranteed to them by international law. 26:00 Gregory Poling: The United States must have rotational forces deployed along the so called first island chain that rings China. And there is no place south of Japan that that can happen other than the Philippines, Admiral Davidson has recognized this. The United States might not be able to do that under Duterte, but we must prevent further erosion of the Alliance and we must prepare a plan for a post 2022, post-Duterte Philippines that will allow us to reengage. 37:00 Dr. Andrew Erickson: Here's where China's overwhelming and still rapidly growing numbers are posing very significant challenges for our efforts to keep the peace and stability in the region. In the naval dimension for example, while many advocate a US Navy of 355 plus ships, both manned and unmanned, China already has its own fully manned Navy of 360 warships according to data recently released by the Office of Naval Intelligence. 48:30 Dr. Oriana Sklylar Mastro: So the number of Chinese nationals overseas, for example, is a relatively new phenomenon. I wrote a paper about it maybe about eight years ago and you have 10s of thousands of Chinese companies operating now in the Indian Ocean region that weren't there before. That we have seen an uptick because of One Belt, One Road as well. And also China used to not be so reliant on oil and energy from outside and now they are one of the top importers and they rely on the Malacca straits for that. 1:00:00 Dr. Andrew Erickson: We see concretely already a naval base in Djibouti. And as you rightly pointed out, there are a series of other ports, where sometimes it's unclear what the ultimate purpose is. But clearly there's extensive Chinese involvement and ample potential for upgrading. 1:03:00 Dr. Andrew Erickson: China's Coast Guard really, in many ways is almost like a second Navy. It's by far the largest in the world in terms of numbers of ships, and while many of them are capable of far ranging operations, the vast majority of China's more than 1,000 coast guard ships are deployed generally near to China. Unlike Coast Guard, such as the US Coast Guard, China's Coast Guard has a very important sovereignty advancement mission. And China's coast guard by recent organizational changes is now formally part of one of China's armed forces, as I mentioned before. 1:08:45 Connolly: And meanwhile China is the title of this hearing is maritime ambitions. It's not just in the South China Sea. The fact that the Chinese built and now are operating the Hambantota port facility, which could easily become a military base because of the indebtedness of the Sri Lankan government and its inability to finance and serve the debt on that finance, has given China a strategic location, through which passes, I'm told, about 30% of all the word shipping, and it's a real nice reminder to India, that now China has that strategic location. Hearing: , U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 24, 2020 Witnesses: Nedal T. Nassar, Section Chief, National Minerals Information Center, Geological Survey, Department of the Interior; Joe Bryan, Atlantic Council Global Energy Center, Hyattsville, Maryland; Mark Caffarey, Umicore USA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas J. Duesterberg, Hudson Institute, Aspen, Colorado; Simon Moores, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, London, United Kingdom. Transcript: 22:00 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): Border closures in Africa have impacted the export of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and platinum from South Africa. Mines in Argentina, Peru and Brazil have temporarily shut down restricting supplies of lithium, copper and iron. 25:00 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): The World Bank released a report last month estimating that demand for lithium, graphite and cobalt will increase 500% by 2050 to meet clean energy demand. 37:00 Nedal T. Nassar: Mineral commodities are the foundation of modern society. Smartphones would have more dropped calls and shorter battery lives without tantalum capacitors and cobalt based cathodes and their lithium ion batteries. Bridges, buildings and pipelines would not be as strong without vanadium and other alloying elements and their Steel's medical MRI machines would use more energy and produce lower quality images without helium cooled niobium based superconducting magnets. 38:45 Nedal T. Nassar: Tantalum and cobalt in smartphones for example, are now predominantly mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and refined in China. 39:00 Nedal T. Nassar: Concurrently, developed countries such as the United States have become increasingly import reliant for their mineral commodity needs, thereby increasing their exposure to foreign supply disruptions. 39:30 Nedal T. Nassar: Many high supply risk commodities are recovered as byproducts. The supply of byproducts has the additional challenge of potentially being unresponsive to demand signals, given their relatively minimal contribution to produce those revenues. 40:00 Nedal T. Nassar: Once a mineral supply chain is identified as high risk, the next step is to determine the best way to reduce that risk. Various strategies can be pursued including diversification of supply, identification and potential expansion of domestic mineral resources, increasing recycling, developing substitutes, maintaining strategic inventories and bolstering trade relations. 43:00 Joe Bryan: From communications gear that keeps our troops connected on the battlefield, to unmanned aerial and subsurface platforms to tactical ground vehicles, transitioning away from lead acid, lithium ion batteries are everywhere. That is not surprising. Energy storage can not only increased capability, but by reducing fuel use can also help take convoys off the road and our troops out of harm's way. 44:15 Joe Bryan: COVID-19 severely impacted the supply of cobalt, a key mineral in the production of lithium ion batteries. 44:30 Joe Bryan: But the lithium ion market also represents an opportunity. Tesla's Nevada Gigafactory is one example. The state of Ohio recently landed a $2.3 billion investment from General Motors and Korea's LG Chem to build a battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio. That facility will bring more than 1000 jobs to the Mahoning Valley. 45:00 Joe Bryan: Now we can't change geology and create resources where they don't exist. But we can change direction and compete for supply chains jobs in minerals extraction, processing, anode and cathode production and cell production. 45:15 Joe Bryan: The scale of global investment in the lithium ion supply chain is massive and investment patterns will have geopolitical impacts. Right now, commercial relationships are being forged and trade alliances hammered out. Decisions made over the next few years will define the global transportation industry for decades to come and plant the seeds of future political alliances. Maintaining our global influence and diplomatic leverage depends on us, not just getting in the race, but setting the pace. From establishing priorities for research and development, to setting conditions for attracting investment to most importantly, hitting the accelerator on transportation electrification. There are things we can do. But to date, our actions have matched neither the scale of the opportunity, the efforts of our competitors, nor the risk we accept, should we remain on the sidelines. 46:30 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): Thank you, Mr. Bryan, appreciate you pointing out the importance of mineral security for our military. Some of us think that our American Mineral Security Initiative would be a good fit within the NDAA that will be coming before us for floor action in these next few days. So thank you for that reminder. 55:45 Thomas J. Duesterberg: Let me now turn to the auto industry. Other witnesses have noted the importance of lithium ion batteries in the control of China over the major mineral resources that go into those batteries. This is incredibly important to the future of the auto industry. China has clearly targeted this industry. It has control of the resources, has a goal of producing for its own domestic market, which is the largest market in the world, 80% of electric vehicles domestically by 2025. 56:30 Thomas J. Duesterberg: China is a major producer of manganese and magnesium minerals which are associated - controls of over 80% of those magnesium resources - which is incredibly important to the future of light vehicles. Substituting alloys with magnesium products is one key to reducing the weight of all kinds of transportation vehicles and construction equipment. 57:30 Thomas J. Duesterberg: Other witnesses have also mentioned rare earths, and other important minerals for which we are dependent on China, such as just tantalum to a certain extent cadmium, these are all important to the $500 billion semiconductor industry, where the United States holds a technological lead and produces over 45% of the chips that it produces here in the United States. 59:00 Thomas J. Duesterberg: I will finally note that the solar power industry also depends on rare earths like cadmium and tellurium. And the leading producer in the United States for solar as a thin film technology that depends greatly on these minerals and gives it an cost advantage over the related products that are being subsidized heavily by China. 39:30 Simon Moores: China is building the equivalent of one battery mega factory a week. United States one every four months. 40:00 Simon Moores: Since 2017, China's battery manufacturing pipeline has increased from nine to 107, which 53 are now active and in production. Meanwhile, the United States has gone from three to nine battery plants, of which still only three are active, the same number as just under three years ago. 1:02:30 Simon Moores: Lithium ion batteries are a core platform technology for the 21st century, they allow energy to be stored on a widespread basis in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. And they sparked the demand for the critical raw materials and candidates. A new global lithium ion economy is being created. Yet any ambitions for the United States to be a leader in this lithium ion economy continues to only creep forward and be outstripped by China and Europe. 1:03:00 Simon Moores: The rise of these battery mega factories will require demand for raw materials to increase significantly. By 2029, so 10 years from now, demand for nickel double, cobalt growth three times, graphite and manganese by four times, lithium by more than six times. 1:03:30 Simon Moores: The United States progress is far too slow on building out a domestic lithium ion economy. For the opportunities that remain are vast and the pioneers have emerged. Tesla has continued to lead the industry and build on its Nevada Gigafactory by announcing supersize battery plants in Germany and China and is expected to announce a fourth in Texas which will give you the United States as first ever 100% own MMA lithium ion battery cells. Ohio has recognized the scaling opportunity and attracted $2.3 billion from General Motors and LG Chem, a joint venture. You can also turn to Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee for electric vehicle and battery cell investment success. Yet, these developments are more of a standalone achievement in a coherent US plan. 1:04:20 Simon Moores: ...Imported raw materials and chemicals are the two main components that make a lithium ion battery - the cathodes and the anodes. America is some of the best cathode know how in the business, yet only three capital plants producing under one percent of global output, while China produces over two thirds of global supply from over 100 cathode [inaudible.] 1:04:45 Simon Moores: For graphite anodes, the United States has zero manufacturing plants while China has 48 plants and controls 84% total global anode supply. 1:05:00 Simon Moores: Developing this midstream of the supply chain will create a domestic ecosystem engine, more battery plants to be built, more electric vehicles to be made, more energy storage systems to be installed, animal spark with the betterment domestic mining and chemical processing. However, be under no illusions that the United States needs to build this 21st century industry from scratch. FDR's New deal for example, built core infrastructure that the United States still relies on today. Nearly 100 years later in similar economic and industrial circumstances your country has to do this all over again. Yet, instead of dams, you need to build battery mega factories in their tenant. Instead of highways and bridges and tunnels you need to build the supply chains to enable these mega factories to operate securely and consistent. These include cathode and anode plants and the lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel and manganese sources to feed them. This has to be done at a speed scale and quality that will make most US corporations feel uncomfortable. Even more, the supply chain needs to be underpinned by bigger sized battery recycling facilities to match the scale of these operations and close the loop. One can also look to the creation of a battery creation - widespread US semiconductor industry back in the 1980s believe that the United States built in semiconductors and computing power has sustained your country's dominance in this space for over five decades. Those who invest in battery capacity and supply chains today will hold the sway of industrial power for generations to come. 1:06:30 Rep. Joe Manchin (WV): Yet here in United States, we have the General Mining Law of 1872, which frankly is nothing short of an embarrassment to our country. In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant was elected president and Susan B. Anthony was served an arrest warrant for voting. Tells you how antiquated our laws are for the hardrock mining, if we're serious about reducing our import reliance for critical minerals, our mining goals need to be updated. We need to improve the regulatory scheme for mines and low ratio at high grade areas and the claim patent system and help the mining industry put themselves in a better light in the public by establishing a royalty to share the profits with the American people. 1:09:15 Rep. Joe Manchin (WV): What portion of the supply chain either upstream or downstream needs the most attention in terms of our national security? Nedal T. Nassar: Thank you, Ranking Member Manchin. So it really the the answer depends on the commodity. So different commodities will have different bottlenecks in their supply chains. In some cases, there's a highly concentrated production on the mining stage. In other cases, it might be further downstream. So for example, for niobium, an element that's produced in only a handful of mines worldwide. And so there are very few mines that are producing it and a single mine might be producing somewhere on the order of two thirds of the world's supply. On the other hand, there might be commodities where it's really not about mining, and it's the there's enough concentrate being produced, but we're simply not recovering it further downstream, such as many of the byproducts. So, earlier, one of the other witnesses mentioned tellurium. There's a lot of tellurium in some of the concentrate that we're mining with copper. Once it gets to the our copper electrolytic refineries, it's simply not recovered for economic reasons. So there there are different stages for different commodities. And that's why I mentioned in my testimony that we do need to look at these supply chains individually to figure out what really is the bottleneck and what strategy would be most effective at reducing that bone. 1:17:45 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): I recall a hearing here in the Energy Committee and one of our witnesses made the comment when it came to recycling that the first place we should look to mine is within our own economy not in the earth but what we have already produced and and basically, remind, repurpose, reuse that so thank you for that comment. 1:19:20 Thomas J. Duesterberg: As Senator Manchin alluded to, we need to revise our mining laws to speed up the permitting process. And perhaps put some time limit on the impact environmental reviews and mining permitting for critical materials. 1:41:30 Joe Bryan: At the same time, from a national security perspective, we may not have minerals but we in some segment segments of the supply chain, but we do have allies and people we can work with and we need to really reach out to those folks like Australia is a perfect example. How are we working with Australia to diversify our supply chain to support our own needs and also perhaps to hedge against China? 2:01:00 Joe Bryan: As a point of reference, note the scale of the Europeans investment, just one of the tranches of funding that came out of the EU. Last December, they put three and a half billion dollars into supply chain investments. Three and a half billion dollars. That's one tranche. I think the European Investment Bank has said that something like 100 billion dollars has been channeled to the battery supply chain. So the scale of their effort is, we sort of pale in comparison to that, notwithstanding your efforts, Madam Chairman, the other thing I would say is post-COVID, it's interesting, I think Europeans have seen support for electrification and the supply chain in their stimulus packages. I know Germany and France have both targeted those industries as part of their stimulus. And I think the reason for that is, we obviously, countries are going to want to recover what they have lost, but they also are seeing this as an inflection point for them to decide where they want to be in the future. And so I think they've taken advantage of that opportunity and have have sort of doubled down on it. And I think we're in the same position as we assess where we are and where we're going. But the scale of their commitment has been, I'll say impressive. 2:11:00 Joe Bryan: Our weakness is throughout the supply chain. So if we have a stockpile of minerals, but they're not processed and usable, then I'm not sure how much good it does. If we have to ship the stockpiled minerals to China for processing, that's probably not the most ideal scenario. So I think we have to look again holistically at the supply chain, look at what we need, and figure out how we position ourselves to attract the kind of massive massive economy changing, transforming levels of investment that are happening globally to the United States. Hearing: , U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, September 17, 2019 Witnesses: - Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, - Director of the Payne Institute and Professor of Public Policy, Colorado School of Mines, - Senior Vice President, Foreign Policy Analytics, - CEO, Blue Whale Materials, LLC, - Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc., Transcript: 40:45 Daniel Simmons: Material intensity and potential global demand is illustrated by a recent report, by a recent analysis by the head of Earth Sciences at the Natural History Museum in the UK, using the most current technologies, for the UK to meet their 2050 electric car targets, it would require just under two times the current annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters of the world's lithium production and at least half of the world's copper production. And to put that in perspective, the UK the population of the UK is only 66 million currently, while the population in the United States is 327 million. 41:40 Daniel Simmons: Cobalt makes up 20% of the weight of the cathode of lithium ion electric vehicle batteries. Today, cobalt is considered one of the the highest material supply risks for electric vehicles in the short and medium term. Cobalt is mined as a secondary material from mixed nickel and copper ore. With the majority of the global supply mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as Senator Manchin mentioned. 52:15 Robert Kang: We need to collect far more of the spent batteries for recycling. The US currently collects less than 5%, while Europe collects approximately 40% or more. Secondly, we need to expand the United States capacity to process batteries. Today, we shipped most of our collected lithium ion batteries for recycling to China, South Korea and Europe. Increasing us processing capacity will allow us businesses to control the flow of these metals earlier in the supply chain. Lastly, we should encourage refining capabilities here in the US. A market for recycled metals will support investments to strengthen the entire lithium ion battery industry in the US. 1:17:45 Robert Kang: I've heard estimates that anywhere from about 20-30% of the world's mineral needs can be met by recycling. Sen. Angus King (ME): Well, that's not insignificant. That's a big number. Robert Kang: And actually it's reclaiming value from our waste stream. Sen. Angus King (ME): Right. Robert Kang: One way to think about this is if you could change your perspective, I believe one of the next new minds of the future, our urban cities, our homes, we have these, this material locked away in our drawers and inboxes that we don't look at too often. So if we can promote collection, if we can take these kind of, spent batteries away from, or bring them back to this industry, I think we can claim a significant amount of minerals. 1:19:00 Robert Kang: We are well aware of foreign entities now that are coming into the US and setting up recycling facilities here because they see these minerals and it's widely known that the US is one of the largest producers of spent lithium ion batteries. Sen. Angus King (ME): They're mining under our very noses. Robert Kang: Yes, sir. Sen. Angus King (ME): In a domestic resource. Robert Kang: Yes, sir. Sen. Angus King (ME): Ridiculous. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): Who is it? Robert Kang: Well, I do know that there is a Korean company that is coming in. There is a Canadian company that's setting up facilities here, as well as we are aware of conversations and research by Chinese firms recyclers who are coming into this market. 1:42:30 Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): My constituents, is the incredible legacy of uncleaned up mines across the west. There are thousands of them. A few years ago during the gold King mine spill, irrigators had to close off their ditches not water their crops, not water their livestock. There were municipal and tribal impacts as huge amounts of released heavy metals came downstream because of the uncleaned up legacy of 150 years of abandoned mines all across the Mountain West. So I think if we're going to, you know, create a path forward, one of the things we need to do is really think about reforming the 1872 mining act if we're going to create the the environment where some of these other things can move forward in a first world country. Hearing: , U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, May 14, 2020 Witnesses: - Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Power, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy - President and COO, Lithium Americas, - Chairman, National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Batteries, Chief Customer Officer, American Battery Solutions, - Director, West Virginia Water Research Institute, West Virginia University Transcript: 36:00 David Solan: Critical minerals are used in many products important to the US economy and national security, and they are particularly important to the most innovative clean energy technologies. For example, some of the minerals DOE considers the most critical in terms of supply risk include gallium for LEDs, the rare earths dysprosium in neodymium for permanent magnets and wind turbines and electric vehicles, and cobalt and lithium for electric vehicle and grid batteries. The US is dependent on foreign sources of many critical minerals. And we also currently lack the domestic capability for downstream processing and materials as well as the manufacturing of some products made from them. 41:10 Jonathan Evans: Lithium Nevada Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lithium Americas. It is headquartered in Reno, Nevada and is developing a project called Factor Pass, which is the largest known lithium resource in the United States. Factor Pass will profoundly improve the supply of lithium chemicals by producing 25% of today's global lithium demand when in full production. Currently, the US produces just 1% of lithium minerals and 7% of lithium chemicals. 49:15 John Warner: Chinese companies are buying up energy materials supply sources around the globe in order to ensure that battery manufacturers based in China have access to reasonably stable supplies of low cost materials. 1:04:30 Paul Ziemkiewicz: Some price support, if not, market support is needed in the early stages, because the first thing that Chinese will do and they've done it before, is drop the price on the market because it has its monopoly. And that'll drive anyone out of business. Mountain Pass was our only active mine right now in United States sends all of its oxide product to China for refining. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Is that because environmental laws in America we were making it very difficult for us to do that process. Paul Ziemkiewicz: I think, and I'm not an economist, but I think it's just because they have the supply chain. 1:16:15 Joe Balash: At the Department of the Interior, we're seeing a graying of our own staff in terms of the the expertise for mining in general and that is something that we see nationwide. 1:17:45 John Warner: There's very few universities today that actually do focus on a program to develop battery engineers, which is one of the most unique engineering fields because it does compromise and come compose of all of the engineering facets from thermodynamics to electronics and software to the chemistry of it. 1:21:20 Jonathan Evans: There are ways to do this. And I think it will be done very, very safely. If you look at traditional sources at least at lithium, but also known cobalt and others, I think projects can do good and do well. Even under the current environmental laws that we have or what's being promulgated in the future, it's possible I think to live in both worlds. 1:22:50 Jonathan Evans: You go next across the border to Canada or Australia, they still have strict environmental standards as well, but they accomplish what Senator Murkowski said. It's seven to 10 years to get approvals here in the United States. There's lots of mineral resources in those countries, it's usually about two years, because there's very strict process, agencies work together and they have, they have to get back and close the process out where things can drag. Sen. Angus King (ME): One of the things we did in Maine that was helpful, might be useful is one stop shopping. In other words, you don't have to go serially to five agencies, you have one lead agency and everybody else works through that process and that we found that to be very effective. 1:25:15 Paul Ziemkiewicz: The Japanese had a territorial dispute on some islands between Japan and China. And it was few years ago, 2010 maybe, the Chinese simply restricted the ability for the Japanese to get their rare earth supply. And the Japanese caved within something like three or four months. Sen. Angus King (ME): Because of the Japanese manufacturer of these high tech devices that needed that supply? Paul Ziemkiewicz: That's correct Senator. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD217: Proxy Voting

13 juli 2020 | 79 min

The House of Representatives is now allowing absent members to vote via members who are physically present on the House floor, in a process called proxy voting, for the first time in US History. In this episode, we examine the unnecessary, unprecedented changes to the way the House passes bills that might also be unconstitutional. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law The COVID-19 Response Laws Bills : Allows the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) to decide if members of the House of Representatives can have another member of the House of Representatives cast their votes for them. She can do this if the Sergeant-at-Arms says that "a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect.” Proxy voting will be allowed for 45 days, and then automatically expire, unless the Speaker decides to extend it for an additional 45 days. There are no limits on how often this can be done. If the Sergeant-at-Arms says that the emergency is no longer in effect, the Speaker has to stop allowing proxy voting. : To choose who will be their proxy, members of the House need to submit a signed letter to the Clerk of the House with the name of their proxy. The letter can be electronic. A member can sign another letter, also allowed to be electronic, in order to revoke a proxy. If a member shows up and votes in person, the proxy authorization is automatically revoked. When the Clerk gets the letter, the Clerk has to notify the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi), the Minority Leader (Kevin McCarthy) and the “members involved”. A member of the House can serve as a proxy for up to 10 other members. The Clerk has to maintain an updated list of the proxy designations and publish them online during any vote conducted using proxy voting. : If a member is not physically present but has designated a proxy to vote for them, the physically missing member will be counted towards establishing a quorum. Before casing a vote for another member, the physically present member has to “obtain an exact instruction” from the missing member in regards to the vote or quorum call. Before casting a vote for someone else, the physically present member has to announce the vote they will cast for the missing member out loud. : All committees are allowed to conduct their hearings remotely and committee votes can be cast “while participating remotely”. Witnesses can appear remotely. “Any committee meeting or hearing that is conducted remotely in according with the regulations” written by the Chairman of the Rules Committee (Jim McGovern) “shall be considered open to the public”. They also “shall be deemed to satisfy all requirements for broadcasting and audio and visual coverage”. Closed sessions are not allowed to be conducted remotely, except for the Ethics Committee. : The Chair of the House Administration Committee (Zoe Lofgren) has to study the technology to be used to conduct remote voting in the House and certify that what she choses is operational and secure. After the technology is certified, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee (Jim McGovern) will write the regulations for remote voting in the House of Representatives. Articles/Documents Article: by Cristina Marcos, The Hill, June 26, 2020 Article: by James Wallner, LegBranch.org, June 16, 2020 Article: By Ian Millhiser, Vox, May 29, 2020 Article: By Niels Lesniewski, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: By Katherine Tully-McManus, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: By Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: By Kristine Phillips, USA Today, May 26, 2020 Article: By Chris Marquette, Roll Call, May 26, 2020 Article: By Nicholas Fandos and Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times, May 26, 2020 Article: By EveryCRSReport.com, May 1, 2020 Article: By Lee Fang, Aída Chávez, The Intercept, April 9, 2020 Article: By Heather Caygle, Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona, Politico, March 26, 2020 Article: By Shane Goldmacher, The New York Times, March 20, 2020 Document: by U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules, Office of the Majority, March 23, 2020 Article: by Gordon Kelly, Forbes, January 29, 2019 Press Release: by Speaker Boehner's Press Office, The New York Times, January 16, 2012 Article: by Brian Wingfield, Forbes, October 20, 2010 Additional Resources Twitter Status: , Twitter Twitter Status: , Twitter Active Proxies: , Clerk of United States House of Representatives, May 20, 2020 Vote Result: , Clerk of United States House of Representatives, May 15, 2020 Officers and Organizations: , United States House of Representatives ABOUT ZOE: , United States Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, Representing California's 19th District Bill: , GovTrack, Apr 13, 2013 Bill: , GovTrack, Mar 28, 2012 Sound Clip Sources Video: , Capitol News Forum, June 26, 2020 Transcript: , United States Congressional Record, May 27, 2020 Hearing: , United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules, May 14, 2020 Transcript: 20:45 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): Though the changes are purportedly limited to the present COVID-19 pandemic timeline, the temporary change we make to the rules today becomes the precedent we follow tomorrow. 23:55 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): This proposed rules package fundamentally changes two key rules of the house. First, for the first time in history of the chamber, we are being asked to approve a system of proxy voting for members on the House floor. That rules change also holds open the possibility of moving forward with totally remote voting. Once the chairperson of the house Administration Committee certifies the technology for that use. Second, again, for the first time in our history, we're being asked to approve a measure that would allow committees to operate remotely and approve legislation remotely. 25:05 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): I have real concerns about whether or not any system of remote voting or proxy voting is constitutional. The language of the Constitution clearly contemplates members being physically present in the chamber to conduct business, a move to any other kind of procedure that involves members not being physically present in the chamber to vote and to make a quorum will put the legislation passed by those methods at risk of court challenges. 26:45 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): Rules change we are considering today will allow for remote voting to take effect without an additional vote of the house, and instead only upon certification of technology by one member, Chairperson Lofgren. This is ceding the authority of the Rules Committee and it denies the entire house deliberation on the technology and a vote on making such a consequential change. 31:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The process of unanimous consent that is allowing bills to pass with just two members in the in the chamber was developed in response to the Spanish flu pandemic, despite the constitution requiring a majority of members to conduct business in both the House and the Senate, use you see to this day. 37:45 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Because of social and physical distancing measures currently in place to save lives and prevent the spread of COVID-19, it is unsafe for members to travel back and forth to Washington from their districts and risk exposing potentially thousands of people while in transit. 38:05 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): It is also unsafe to require thousands of House staff and Capitol Hill employees to commute to work while infections have not even reached their peak in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 38:27 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Of course, the founders did not contemplate the technology that is now available to us, which allows us to meet virtually. To see one another, to hear one another, to respond to one another, virtually not in the same room, but in the same box, that we call an iPad or a computer or some other device that allows us to communicate in real time, essentially, in person, virtually. 42:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): First step authorizes the house to begin working on a remote voting system. Such a system would only be used during emergencies like this one. Let me stress that. In the 40 years I have been here there is not an instance where I think this would be justified, until now. 43:00 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): We are not fundamentally changing the way the house works. Let me be clear we are not changing. There is no advantage to Democrats. No disadvantage to Republicans by using virtual technology. None. Zero. Zip. 45:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): And we are all committed that we would only use it in extraordinary circumstances. I don't believe there's been such a certain circumstance the United States of America since 1918. Over 100 years ago. This may be once in a century experience for our country. 48:00 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): Talking about a member of congress giving their voting privilege to someone else. There's legitimate constitutional uncertainty with what is being proposed, and it could call into question the validity of any legislation the proxy voting is used for. 53:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): This is the Rules Committee, right? We are one of the smallest committees in Congress. And here we are taking up the entire Ways and Means Committee room, which is one of the biggest committee rooms in Congress. What do you do with the Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee, which you know, are significantly larger. Some have suggested that maybe they can meet in the auditorium, or maybe on the House floor, one at a time. We have a huge amount of work to do. There are, in addition to responding to this crisis, and trying to figure out how to get the economy back on its feet again, we have much past bills that we need to get done. I mean, the Defense Authorization Bills, Appropriations Bills, I mean, and the the fact that we cannot function, our committee process just literally can't function the way it should, if we're going to follow CDC guidelines. I mean, that is problematic. So what do we do? We don't meet? We don't address certain issues that need to be addressed? 56:05 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): And this alternative, which I think incorporates some of the things that are in the press release that you guys released was that, you know, we should operate like the White House, and we all should get tested. We all should move to the front of the line. We're all special enough that even though our constituents can't get tests, people who work in hospitals, first responders, people who are in working in food pantries in homeless shelters, who, quite frankly, should be tested, that Congress the way we can kind of manage this as we all come back, and every time we have a discussion, we'll get tested. I don't know what the reaction would be in minority leaders district but in my district, people think that's tone deaf and think it's wrong, that we're not super special, that we should move to the front of the line. 58:15 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): But the gentleman referred to the change that was done, that was implemented after 911. When the Republicans were in charge of The House, and in 2005, you changed the rules for a provisional quorum, which would allow in the extreme, two members to constitute a quorum. Now, the Constitution, defines a quorum is the majority of the membership, but under the rules change that was done back then. I mean, you literally could have two members constitute a quorum. I don't think that's constitutional. But nonetheless, that was the plan that was put forward and yeah, it may have taken a long time to put forward but I don't really think it was a very good a good plan. 59:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): We have come together in a bipartisan way on a number of packages that have become now law in which we have literally appropriated the house in a bipartisan way. The Senate in a bipartisan way is appropriated trillions of dollars to help respond to this health crisis, and to help try to protect our economy. We need to do oversight, we need to make sure the money is being spent the way we want it to be spent. I mean, that's one of our jobs and if committees cannot meet because of this pandemic, you know, where they have to wait their turn, you know, because we don't have rooms big enough here for people to meet and follow CDC guidelines, that's a dereliction of our duty. 1:05:00 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Because I believe that being virtually present and being present is essentially the same thing in the constitutional consequences of that presence. Because I can vote "aye" here and I can vote "aye" 1000 miles away, and it has the same representation of my constituents. It's just transmitted in a different way. 1:09:05 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): But why when we have the technology that allows us to do it virtually do we put lives at risk not only here, you're going to go back to Oklahoma at some point in time, and you're going to deal with the folks in Oklahoma and you're going to come from a hotspot. Now, hopefully, you will not have anything to transmit. But we know that that's possible. 1:20:50 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The way it worked back then, was that the chair would have a bunch of proxies in his or her pocket and vote however, the chair saw fit without consulting with the member. That is not the way this should work. And that is not what this we're talking about is. What we're talking about is that if you want to give me your proxy, you have to indicate in writing, how you want me to vote on every single vote, and then it will be announced publicly how you voted on the on the House floor. And if Jim McGovern had Rodney Davis, his proxy and I voted, contrary to the way you wanted to it would be announced and there would be a period of time. If I voted, if I somehow abuse my power, for it to be corrected. 1:26:50 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): Also gives unprecedented power to just the Chairperson of House Administration. Doesn't say she has to consult with me, the ranking member when determining what type of technology to choose and implement before putting forth remote voting on the house floor. Remote voting is much different than proxy voting that allows somebody to sit at home and cast a vote. And yes, there's technology Mr. Chair that could allow that to happen. But in the end, why do we have one person in the majority party determining what technology to use. 1:35:40 Rep. Norma Torres (CA): I have a pre existing condition and when I got on the plane yesterday, I was scared to death. There were people in the screening area of the TSA process that were much too close for my own comfort. And I have made a commitment to my staff to my family that if that plane was more than 70% occupied and there were people, you know, stepping over each other that I would immediately get off of it before taking off cause I am not willing to risk my life for this. 1:49:15 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): One of the problems we have today is that although people conceptually raise the pandemic that had happened in 1918, could happen again, it was conceptual. And as a result, we were not prepared. Here it is actual. That's why you're sitting with a mask, why I'm sitting with a mask. Why we're distancing, we're in this large room, as the chairman pointed out, where small room would have accommodated the Rules Committee and the witnesses. It is here. It's not conceptual, it's not theoretical. We had 9-11, now had 9-11 knocked out the entire air traffic system, it would have been actual because people would not have been able to get here except drive maybe five days or three days from the west coast. 1:5330* Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): Proposing that we take a baby step, that we'd go with a low tech approach first and as we feel more comfortable, we can evolve. This may shock you, Mr. Woodall, but there are some members of the House who still have flip phones. There are some members of this chamber who are more technologically comfortable than others. There are some members of this house who think bifocals are a radical idea. So I mean, the bottom line is we are trying to deal with the situation in a way that we feel that there's a comfort level and as people get more comfortable, we can then look at other other things. 1:55:05 Rep. Rob Woodall (GA): And it says specifically a member casting a vote or recording the presence of another member as a designated proxy under this resolution shall cast such vote or record such presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the other member. Now, when Mr. Davis's name is called and I'm holding his proxy, and I speak out and vote, in a way contrary to the Davis instruction, because things do come up on the on the fly and not everything can be consulted with, what is the procedure for resolving that? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): The theory, not the theory, but I think the the letter of the rule that's being proposed is, if you did not get instructions, you could not vote that proxy. Rep. Rob Woodall (GA): I'm going the other direction. I did receive instructions and I'm voting against those instructions, just like in the electoral college where folks have received instructions to vote for President Trump, but they don't. What is my recourse? As a Member, again most solemn responsibility we have as members is is voting on the House floor. What is my recourse? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): 'Madam Clerk, he cast my vote incorrectly.' You can email, you can text, you can call. There's so many different methods of technology. 1:56:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): My own view, I will tell you honestly, is that the best way for me to convey my vote is to look into my phone on FaceTime, and say I vote aye or nay, I don't think, I personally don't believe this is a security question. 1:57:10 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): If you are assuming if you're trying to assert that Mr. Horry(?) would deliberately try to take your vote and use it in a bad way, and that's a question of privilege, and you would have the opportunity to be able to correct it, so hopefully if you're participating remotely, you are following what is going on. You will hear your name announced you will hear how you voted. And if you call him Mr. Horry(?) doesn't want to change your vote and it's a question of privilege, and you have the right to be able to change it that way. 1:57:10 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): If you are assuming if you're trying to assert that Mr. Hoyer would deliberately try to take your vote and use it in a bad way, and that's a question of privilege, and you would have the opportunity to be able to correct it, so hopefully if you're participating remotely, you are following what is going on. You will hear your name announced, you will hear how you voted. And if you call him, Mr. Hoyer doesn't want to change your vote and it's a question of privilege, and you have the right to be able to change it that way. 2:05:20 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Why are we acting quickly? Because the experts tell us and some people believe the experts that this may regenerate itself in September, we may have a flattening. But until frankly, we get a vaccine or a therapeutic that very substantially minimizes the consequences of COVID-19. We're going to have a problem. And if it raises, again, its ugly head in September, we ought to be ready for September is going to be a very busy month for us. And we don't have a lot, it's an election year, so we're going to be off in October, etc, etc. So now is the time that you say we move quickly, we did move quickly, because we need to anticipate we would we all hope this gets better. We all hope we get a vaccine we all hope we get a therapeutic. But if it doesn't, we need to be ready to make sure that Congress is empowered to act on behalf of the American people and to conduct oversight. 2:13:55 Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): But we cannot have government come to a grinding halt. In a pandemic, where our own Attending Physician or our public health experts at home or the public health experts here in DC say you guys shouldn't get together because you could drag the disease from Denver to DC or you could take the disease from DC back to Denver. And that's the last thing I want to do. 2:18:00 Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): Mr. Hoyer, I understand that this rule terminates at some... This is a temporary rule, is it not? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): The life of the Congress, and 45 days in the sense of it has to be recertified. That the cause of the rules being implemented was still present. Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): Right, for the rule to be called upon. It has to be the Sergeant at Arms, the Attending Physician and The Speaker. And then it lasts for 45 days, at least the proxy voting and the different things called for in the rule. 2:23:40 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): We do not oppose, as Republicans, and you can see in the plan that was submitted for the record. We do not oppose remote hearings. We do not oppose utilizing technology. 2:25:05 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): I do want to clarify some things. Yes, the United States Senate does have a proxy process. But that proxy process, unlike the rule that's being debated today, does not ever allow a proxy vote on the House on the Senate floor. That's something that this rule will allow for today. 2:25:50 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): That this Congress has not stopped working. This Congress, just a few short weeks ago, had 300 members that came out here. I do understand and I share the concerns of my colleagues in this room about staff, which is why we worked in a bipartisan way before this crisis, to get equipment to every office, so that every office was ready in case they needed to telework, and they did. 3:18:25 Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): We're living in a house where the work product is coming from the very top and being thrown upon the rest of us, and we're abdicating our responsibility to legislate. If we're honest with ourselves, I believe no one would challenge me when I say the rights and individual prerogatives of the members of the House had been steadily shrinking for decades. It was true when the chairman eloquently made this point when he was the ranking member of this committee, and it's just as true today. Too much power has been taken away from individual members and committees of jurisdiction and transferred to the office of the speaker. With all due respect, this proposal today reinforces what is fast becoming a complete transfer the power of the institution to the speaker. 3:22:55 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): But understand what's in this proposal. One member can have 10 proxies you know what that means? 22 members with 10 proxies in their back pocket can conduct the business of the American people. 22 - 5% of the United States House of Representatives. 3:56:20 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): As I read the rule that we're considering today, yes, there's a time limit on the denotation, that this is an emergency and all of this is triggered. But there's an extension available. And that extension is arrived at by the speaker in consultation with the Sergeant at Arms and Attending Physician, two individuals that I hold in very high regard, but they're not constitutional offices. So we're putting some power in the hands of some people that are really not accountable to the people and this being the people's House. That seems to me to be counter to what we should be about. Do either of you have a thought on that? Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): Well, I think he said it correctly. Rules that we're operating in this house right now will all go out on January 3 at noon, when the new Congress comes in. But between now and then, that can be this perpetual, running 40 five day extension of this all the way up into the very end. And there's no check on that. I mean, it's up to the speaker. And one person and other speakers of important position in the house. But one person can let this thing just roll over and over and over to the end of the Congress. 4:00:45 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The alternative to this is to rely on the republican standing rule, which is, well, you could literally redefine a quorum as two people. And again, my friends here, many of them supported it. I did not at the time, but that is what the standing rule is right now that my friends passed post 911 and I think that is unacceptable. 4:09:50 Rep. Joseph Morelle (NY): We'll note though 45 days is the is the amount indicated, but it also suggests on page three, that even during any - whether it's the original 45 day or an additional 45 days is the covered period. The speaker the designee receives further notification from the sergeant of arms in consultation with the attending physician, that the public health emergency due to the Coronavirus is no longer in effect, the speaker shall terminate the covered period. It's not as though the speaker can't - it doesn't say may, it says shall. So, immediately upon so of the speaker, as I read the rule, the speaker says on on May 1, we have a pandemic I've been advised by the sergeant of arms in consultation with the attending physician to put this temporary rule in place. And then two weeks later before the 45 days has terminated. If you receive if the speaker receives another certification or notification in the sergeant of arms that the emergency no longer exists, it is terminated shall terminate, so it wouldn't 45 days in length. 4:02:35 Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Mr. Cole posed an interesting question to the panel about whether all of you concurred that you think that the proposed rule here is unconstitutional. And each one of you in Syria them repeated the idea that you thought it was unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Bern, as candidly volunteered that the current rule adopted by a Republican Congress is unconstitutional, which would allow two members to constitute a quorum. Mr. Jordan, what about you? Do you agree the current rule is unconstitutional. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): As the gentleman well knows, my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus have come to the floor and objected to unanimous consent to pass certain legislation. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): You agree you agree with me? Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): We've always had a problem with that? Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Do you agree...just a yes or no question. Do you agree with Mr. Byrne, it's unconstitutional? Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): Yeah, I don't like the rule that we've been very clear about that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): You agree? it's unconstitutional. Okay. Is that right? Okay, Mr. Bern, you presumably still agree that it's unconstitutional? Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): Yes, sir. Okay, if you're gonna be consistent, you have to follow what the Constitution requires. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I try to be consistent. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Mr. Bishop, do you believe the current rule is unconstitutional, adopted under the Republican Congress? Rep. Dan Bishop (NC): I've examined it carefully, but I find Mr. Byrne's comments and those that have been made by the Chairman on the point persuasive, it probably is unconstitutional. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Okay. Video: , 60 Minutes, 2011 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD216: Dingleberries Against Police Brutality

14 juni 2020 | 83 min

In response to the horrific murder of George Floyd and the worldwide protests against police brutality that followed, the House Democrats wrote the Justice in Policing Act. The provisions in this bill are our best chance for real change in the 116th Congress. In this episode, we see how the bill would limit military equipment being transferred to cops, create a nationwide public database for information about cops and police departments, and limit the qualified immunity that allows cops to use violence with impunity. We also look at The Dingleberry Method, which is the best play for Democrats to use if they want any of this to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Democracy Upgrade Stalled How to End Legal Bribes Bill Outline Subtitle A - Holding Police Accountable in the Courts Makes it a crime for someone enforcing a law to “knowingly or with reckless disregard” deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitutions, instead of “willingly” deprive a person their rights. Local law enforcement officers and prison guards will not be given immunity if they say they were acting in “good faith” or that they believed their conduct was lawful. Gives the Attorney General optional subpoena authority and authorizes (but does not appropriate) $300,000 for grants to help states conduct investigations for the next three years The attorney general to give grants to states to help them conduct independent investigations of law enforcement. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $2.25 billion Subtitle B - Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act Orders the Attorney General to do a review and recommend additional standards that are supposed to result in greater accountability of law-enforcement agencies. Gives the Attorney General the option to provide grants to Community organizations to study law-enforcement standards. Orders the attorney general to do a study on the ability of law-enforcement officers to dodge investigative questions. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) about $28 million. Creates a task force staffed by the Attorney General to process complaints of law enforcement misconduct. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $5 million per year Each federal, state, and local law enforcement agency would have to report a breakdown of the numbers of traffic stops, pedestrian stops, , And uses of deadly force by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers and the the members of the public to the Attorney General. States that do not submit the reports would not be given money from the Department of Justice. Subtitle A - National Police Misconduct Registry Six months after enactment, the Atty. Gen. would have to create a database containing each complaint filed against the law enforcement officer, termination records, certifications, in records of lawsuits and settlements made against the officer. The registry would be available to the public Withholds money from a state or jurisdiction if all officers have not completed certification requirements. Subtitle B - PRIDE Act Requires states to report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis, information about law enforcement officers who shoot civilians, civilians who shoot law-enforcement officers, any incident involving the death or arrest of a law-enforcement officer, deaths in custody, and arrests and bookings. The reports must contain information about the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer used force. Reports must also include the location of the incident, whether the civilian was armed and with what kind of weapon, the type of force used, the reason force was used, a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident, the number of officers involved, the number of civilians involved, a description of the circumstances, efforts by local law-enforcement to de-escalate the situation, or the reason why efforts to de-escalate were not attempted. The Attorney General would have to make this information public once per year in a report. Subtitle A - End Racial and Religious Profiling Act “No law-enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling." Racial profiling is defined as relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities. Allows victims of racial profiling to sue in civil courts, either in the state for in a district court of the United States. Subtitle B - Additional Reforms The attorney general has to establish a training program to cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice. The training program must exhibit a clear duty for federal law-enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another law-enforcement officer is using excessive force against a civilian. Search warrants authorized for drug cases would have to require that the law-enforcement officer provide notice of his or her authority and purpose. States will not receive funding from the Department of Justice unless the state has enacted a law prohibiting officers in the State or jurisdiction from using a chokehold or carotid hold. Chokeholds would be classified as civil rights violations “Less lethal” force can be used if it’s “necessary and proportional” in order to arrest a person “who the officer has probably cause to believe has committed a criminal offense” and if “reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less lethal force have been exhausted” Deadly force can only be used “as a last resort” to “prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person”, and if the use of deadly force creates no “substantial risk of injury to a third person”, and if “reasonable alternatives tot he use of the form of deadly fore have been exhausted” Officers have to give people a verbal warning that they are a law enforcement officer and that they “will use force against the person if the person resists arrest or flees” Prohibits the 1033 Program from transferring military equipment to domestic law enforcement for “counter drug” and “border security activities” but they can continue to get equipment for “counterterrorism” Would require the police departments to submit to the Defense Department a description of how they intend to use the military equipment, the department would have to publish a notice on their website and “at several prominent locations in the jurisdiction" that they are requesting the military equipment, and have the notices available for 30 days, and that the department has approval to receive the equipment by the city council. Reports on where the equipment goes must be submitted to Congress Prohibits the transfer of controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades (including flash bangs), explosives, controlled vehicles, MRAPs, trucks, drones, combat aircraft, silencers, and long range acoustic devices. The department would be required to return the equipment if they are investigated by the Justice Department or found to have engaged in widespread civil rights abuses Police departments “may never take ownership” of controlled property Applies only to equipment transferred in the future. Subtitle C - Law Enforcement Body Cameras Regarding the Use of Body Cameras Requires uniformed officers with the authority to conduce searches and make arrests to wear a body camera. The body camera - vide and audio - must be activated whenever a uniformed officer is responding to a call for service or during any other law enforcement encounter with a member of the public, except if an immediate threat to the officer’s life or safety makes turning the camera on impossible. Officers must notify members of the public that they are wearing a body camera When entering someone’s home or speaking to a victim, the officer must ask if the resident or victim wants the camera turned off and turn it off if requested, if they are not executing a search warrant. Body cameras can not be equipped with real time facial recognition technology Facial recognition technology can be used with the footage with a warrant Body cameras can’t be used to gather intelligence on protected speech, associations, or relations. Body cameras are not required when the officer is speaking to a confidential informant or when recording poses a risk to national security. Body cameras are not allowed to be turned on when an officer is on a school campus unless he/she is responding to an imminent threat of life or health Footage must be retained for 6 months and then permanently deleted Citizens and their lawyers and the families of deceased citizens have the right to inspect body camera footage related to their cases Body camera footage related to a use of force or a civilian complaint must be kept for at least 3 years Redactions can be used Body camera footage retained longer than 6 months is inadmissible in court If an officer interferes or turns off a recording, “appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken” and the interference can be used as evidence in court. In car video camera recording equipment must record whenever an officer is on patrol duty, conducting an enforcement stop, patrol lights are activated, if the officer thinks the recording could help with a prosecution, and when an arrestee is being transported. Recordings must be retained for 90 days. In car video cameras can not be equipped with facial recognition technology TITLE IV - JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT Co-conspirators to a lynching can be sentenced to 10 years in prison Articles/Documents Article: By Barbara Sprunt, npr, June 8, 2020 Article: By Mandeep R Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, and Amit N Patel, The Lancelet, June 5, 2020 Article: By Donald Shaw, Sludge, June 4, 2020 Article: By Radley Balko, The Washington Post, June 3, 2020 Article: By David Sirota, Substack, June 2, 2020 Article: By Maggie Koerth and Jamiles Lartey, FiveThirtyEight, June 1, 2020 Article: By David Morgan, Reuters, June 1, 2020 Statement: , U.S. Northern Command, September 23, 2019 Article: By Ben Fountain, Medium, September 17, 2018 Document: by Aaron C. Davenport, Jonathan William Welburn, Andrew Lauland, Annelise Pietenpol, Marc Robbins, Erin Rebhan, Patricia Boren, K. Jack Riley, Rand Corporation, 2018 Article: By Pete Williams and Julia Ainsley, NBC News, August 28, 2017 Article: By Mitch Smith, The New York Times, March 11, 2017 Article: By Stephen Ceasar, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2014 Article: By Thomas Barrabi, International Business Times, November 25, 2014 Article: By Daniel H. Else, Congressional Research Service, Specialist in National Defense, August 28, 2014 Additional Resources About: , The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2020 Witnesses: Art Acevedo: President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association Paul Butler: Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School Vanita Gupta: President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill: President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Marc Morial: President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Urban League Ben Crump: President and Founder of Ben Crump Trial Lawyer for Justice (lawyer for the family of George Floyd) Transcript: 34:15 Vanita Gupta: My tenure as head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division began two months after 18 year old Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson. The Justice Department was hardly perfect, but we understood our mandate: to promote accountability and constitutional policing in order to build community trust. During the Obama administration, we opened 25 pattern-or-practice investigations to help realize greater structural and community centered change, often at the request of police chiefs and mayor's who needed federal leadership. After making findings, we negotiated consent decrees with extensive engagement and input from community advocates, who not only identified unjust and unlawful policing practices, but also helped develop sustainable mechanisms for accountability and systemic change. That is not the Justice Department that we have today. Under both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, the department has abdicated its responsibility and abandoned the use of tools like pattern-or-practice investigations and consent decrees. Instead it is focused on dismantling police accountability efforts and halting any new investigations. The disruption of crucial work in the Civil Rights Division and throughout the Department of Justice to bring forth accountability and transparency in policing is deeply concerning. In the absence of federal leadership, the Leadership Conference Education Fund launched the new era of public safety initiative, a comprehensive guide and toolkit outlining proposals to build trust between communities and police departments, restore confidence and imagine a new paradigm of public safety. While much of these changes must happen at the state and local level, success is going to require the leadership support and commitment of the federal government including Congress. Last week, the leadership conference and more than 400 civil rights organizations sent a letter to Congress to move us forward on a path of true accountability. The recommendations included the following: One, create a national necessary standard on the use of force. Two, prohibit racial profiling, including robust data collection. Three, ban the use of chokeholds and other restraint maneuvers. Four, end the militarization of policing. Five, prohibit the use of no knock warrants, especially in drug cases. Six, strengthen federal accountability systems and increase the Justice Department's authority to prosecute officers that engage in misconduct. Seven create a national police misconduct registry. And eight, end qualified immunity. The Leadership Conference was pleased to learn that the Justice in Policing Act introduced Monday by both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate reflects much of this accountability framework. This is Congress's most comprehensive effort in decades to substantially address police misconduct by taking on issues critical issues affecting black and brown communities. 1:02:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: One of the key parts of the system of impunity has been qualified immunity defense that shields officials from the unforeseeable consequences of their act but has been interpreted by courts so ***extensively that it now provides near immunity for police officers who engage and unconstitutional acts of violence. 1:02:45 Sherrilyn Ifill: The Justice and policing act seeks to address qualified immunity by amending the civil rights statute used most in police excessive use of force cases. 42 USC section 1983 and we welcome this amendment. We want it to apply to all civil suits that are pending or filed after enactment of the Act. And we'll continue to work towards the elimination of qualified immunity. 1:24:10 Ben Crump: The only reason we know what happened to George Floyd is because it was captured on video. The advent of video evidence is bringing into the light what long was hidden. It's revealing what black Americans have known for a long, long time - that it is dangerous for a black person to have an encounter with a police officer. Given the incidents that have led to this moment in time, it should be mandatory for police officers to wear body cams and should be considered obstruction of justice to turn them off. Like a black box data recorded in an airplane body cams replace competing narratives with a single narrative, the truth with what we see with our own eyes. 3:00 Vanita Gupta: I will tell you there's actually significant law enforcement support for this kind of registry. And prosecutors around the country have asked for this kind of registry. But chiefs in particular have said that this is a real problem when they don't have this kind of information when they're making hiring decisions. 14:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: The principal problems that we have found in this long standing systemic issue of police violence against unarmed African Americans is the inability to hold officers who engage in misconduct accountable. Now, this is not just about the individual officer who some refer to as a bad apple. This is about a system of accountability that must exist if police officers are to understand that they cannot engage in certain kinds of conduct without impunity. And unfortunately, all of the legal tools that are available to us to hold officers accountable, have been weakened or lacked the sufficient strength and language to allow us to do so. So strengthening the language of the federal criminal statute that will not hold us to such a high standard and proving intent of the officers conduct is critical. And so adding a recklessness provision into that language that will allow us to get at some of this officer misconduct is vitally important. 45:00 Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): Mayor Morial, throughout recent times, we've seen repeated instances where black people often unarmed have been killed by a police officer. And if the death results in a use of force investigation, that investigation most often is conducted by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force. Isn't that correct? Marc Morial: That's traditionally the way it works. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler we've also witnessed these use of force investigations being overseen by the local district attorney who works hand in hand, day after day, year after year, with the same officer and with the agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force in the case that's under investigation. Isn't that correct? And attorney Crump we've seen time and time again that the investigation becomes long and drawn out. And at some point, months or even years later, the local Prosecutor takes that case before a secret grand jury. And out of that grand jury usually comes what's called a no bill, which is a refusal to indict the officer who committed the homicide. Isn't that correct? Ben Crump: Yes, sir congressman Johnson. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler because grand jury proceeding's a secret, the public never learns exactly what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury. Isn't that correct? Paul Butler: Just like the grand jury proceeding in Staten Island with Eric Garner, who was placed in an illegal chokehold. We have no idea why that grand jury didn't indict that officer for murder. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): It becomes just another justified killing of a black person by the police in America. Wouldn't it be fairer if the homicide investigation were undertaken by an Independent Police Agency, Attorney Gupta? Vanita Gupta: I think it would. It would also give the community members are much more faith in their legal system if there was an independent investigator in these kinds of cases. 1:41:30 Rep. Tom McClintock (CA): I think there are many proposals that have been raised in the house that merit support. And first is the doctrine of qualified immunity as it's currently applied. It has no place in a nation ruled by laws. For every right, there must be a remedy. And qualified immunity prevents a remedy for those whose rights have been violated by officials holding a public trust. And this reform should apply as much to a rogue cop who targets people because of their race, as it does to IRS or Justice Department officials and target people on the basis of their politics. 1:42:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Police records must be open to the public. It is a well established principle that public servants work for the public. And the public has a right to know what they're doing with the authority the public has loaned them. And police departments should be able to dismiss bad officers without interference from the unions. 1:42:45 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Turning police departments into paramilitary organizations is antithetical to the sixth principle laid down by Peel. Quote, "To use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective." Weapons that are unique to a battlefield need to be limited to a battlefield. 1:43:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): No knock warrants have been proven to be lethal to citizens and to police officials for obvious reasons. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers the government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes. And that means that the authority as a police must be announced before that intrusion takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril. 2:00:45 Vanita Gupta: I think right now there is a hunger in the streets and in communities around the country to recognize that people want other options in their communities other than to call 911 and have a police officer come at the door when people are in mental health crisis, for homelessness issues and school discipline issues. And they want to - and I've heard this from police chiefs. The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very powerful statement two days ago, recognizing the systematic decades of underinvestment in the kinds of social systems in housing and homelessness and education, and how that's all been placed at the feet of police officers. This needs to be a holistic evaluation of what spending priorities have been in communities that have been saturated with a criminal justice response, but under invested with resources for education and jobs, and the like. 2:39:00 Rep. Greg Stube (FL): But there are proposals in this bill that are extremely dangerous for those who protect our communities. Removing qualified immunity is only... Qualified immunity is only a protection if officers follow their training and protocols. If they don't follow the training and protocols, they don't get to use the immunity because it's qualified. If officers don't have qualified immunity to follow the training and protocols. I don't know a single person who would want to become a law enforcement officer in today's world, knowing that they may or may not be able to use the training and protocols that they were used to be able to apprehend a suspect who is not complying with them. But maybe that's the goal of the majority to get less and less people to join our law enforcement offices. 2:59:00 Vanita Gupta: Justice Department currently only has one law that they can use to prosecute police misconduct. And as you said, it has the highest mens rea requirement there is in criminal law requiring not only that prosecutors prove that the officer used unreasonable force, but actually also that the officer knew that what he or she was doing was in violation of the law and did it anyway, that is actually a very high burden. And so for years, there have been case after case that the Justice Department has been unable to reach it because of how high this burden is. There are many criminal civil rights prosecutors that for years have also wanted the change that is being proposed in the Justice in Policing Act, because I think it would enhance the Justice Department's credibility in these matters to be able to hold officers who violate federal civil rights laws accountable. And so this Justice in Policing Act asks it change the mens rea standard to knowingly or with reckless disregard, to slightly lower standards so more cases will be charged. It also really importantly broadens the language of the federal civil rights statute by including in its definition of a death resulting from an officers action, any act that was a substantial factor contributing to death. And I know many, many former US Attorneys that are eager to see this change as well. 3:07:00 Vanita Gupta: It is a real shame that in 2020, we still do not have adequate data collection on use of force in this country. We've had to rely for several years on journalists to putting this stuff together at the Washington Post and at The Guardian. The FBI has started to try to more systematically collected it, but this bill, the justice in policing act actually includes a requirement for states to report use of force data to the Justice Department, including the reason that force was used. Technical Assistance Grants are established in this bill to assist agencies that have fewer than 100 employees with compliance. That was often the reason that that police agencies were not reporting on this, but it also requires the Attorney Generals to collect data on traffic stops, searches, uses of deadly force by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, and to disaggregate that data by race, ethnicity and gender. 3:26:00 Vanita Gupta: This national registry would have misconduct complaints. It would have discipline termination records, it would have records of certification. It contains conditioning for money for funds from so that agencies actually have to put in inputs before they can access federal money, but it is high time for this to happen. 3:39:20 Vanita Gupta: The Trump DOJ has essentially abandoned and abdicated a mandate that was given by Congress in 1994 to investigate patterns and practices of unconscious, systemic, unconstitutional policing and police departments around the country. Since the administration began, there has been the opening only of one on a very tiny issue at the police department out of Springfield, Massachusetts, compared to 25 in the Obama administration, and many others in Republican and Democratic administrations prior to that. And so what that has meant is that the tool of these investigations, the tool of the consent decrees has just been lying dormant. Typically, when I oversaw the Civil Rights Division, we had mayors and police chiefs that really, in numerous instances, were actually asking the Justice Department to come in because they needed federal help in very bad situations. And so, jurisdictions have not been able to rely anymore on the Justice Department to support these kinds of efforts. And I think this bill, Justice in Policing does a lot to strengthen the Civil Rights Division's authority, giving it subpoena power, giving it resources. It also gives State Attorneys General the ability to do these patterns and practices where they have already state laws that allow them to do it as well. And that's, of course in this moment, with a justice department that is very disengaged from these issues. An important... Hearing: , United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 9, 2014 Witnesses: Alan Estevez - Principal Deputy Defense Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Brian Kamoie - FEMA Grant Programs Assistant Administrator Peter Kraska - Professor at the School of Justice at University of Eastern Kentucky Mark Lomax - National Tactical Officers Association Executive Directior Transcript: 26:00 Alan Estevez: More than 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies actively participate in the program across 49 states in three US territories. More than $5.1 billion of property has been provided since 1990. 26:15 Alan Estevez: A key element in both the structure and execution of the program is the state coordinator, who is appointed by the respective state governor. State coordinators approve law enforcement agencies within their state to participate in the program, review all requests for property submitted by those agencies along with the statement of intended use. Working through state coordinators. Law enforcement agencies determine their need for different types of equipment and they determine how it's used. The Department of Defense does not have the expertise and police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual law enforcement agencies. 27:14 Alan Estevez: Law enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have received over time. 27:20 Alan Estevez: Examples of control property include over 92,000 small alarms 44,000 night vision devices 5200 High Mobility Multi Purpose wheeled vehicles or Humvees and 617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles or MRAPs. The department does not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, crew served weapons or uniforms. 28:20 Alan Estevez: During the height of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey, police drove cargo trucks and three Humvees through water too deep for commercial vehicles to save 64 people. In Wisconsin, Green Bay police used donated computers for forensic investigations. During a 2013 flood in Louisiana, Livingston parish police used six Humvees to rescue 137 people. In Texas armored vehicles received through program protected police officers during a standoff and shootout with gang members. 30:35 Brian Kamoie: The department's preparedness grant programs assist communities across the nation to build and sustain critical capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. 33:00 Brian Kamoie: Grant recipients must purchase equipment listed on the department's authorized equipment list, which outlines 21 categories of allowable equipment. The department prohibits the use of grant funds for the purchase of lethal or non lethal weapons and ammunition. These equipment categories are not on the authorized equipment list. Homeland Security grant funds may be used to purchase equipment that can be classified as personal protective equipment, such as ballistics protection equipment, helmets, body armor, and ear and eye protection. Response vehicles such as BearCats are also allowed. The Homeland Security Act allows equipment purchased with grant funds, including personal protective equipment to be used for purposes unrelated to terrorism. So long as one purpose of the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism based capabilities. 33:46 Brian Kamoie: The authorized equipment list also notes that ballistic personal protective equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot suppression. 40:10 Alan Estevez: When it's no longer needed, we make it available not just cross levels across the Department of Defense first, and law enforcement by congressional authorization as dibs early in that process before it goes out to state agencies. And not all the equipment that's provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. 40:45 Alan Estevez: Again, it's not for the department to really judge how law enforcement's...that's not our expertise. We rely on the state coordinators, appointed by the governor of each of those states who vet incoming requests from their local law enforcement agencies. 48:00 Coburn: How do you all determine what Federal Supply classes are available to be transferred? Alan Estevez: That is done basically by our item managers who... Coburn: I know, but tell me how do they decide MRAPs appropriate for community of my hometown, 35,000 people. Alan Estevez: that is done by the state coordinate... Coburn: I understand that but how did you ever decide that an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for for local police forces? Alan Estevez: We know an MRAP is a truck senator with Coburn: No it is not a truck. It's a 48,000...offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: It's a very, very, very heavy...it is not an offensive weapon, Senator. Coburn: It can be used as an offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: When we give an MRAP, it is stripped of all its electronic warfare capability. It does not have a 50 caliber weapon on it. It is not an offensive weapon, is a protective vehicle. 49:15 Coburn: How do we ever get to the point where we think states need MRAPs. How did that process come about? Alan Estevez: Now this is one of the areas that we're obviously going to look at senator. How we decided what equipment is available. I mean, obviously we've made some big decisions, fighter aircraft tanks, strikers, those type of things are not available. Sniper Rifles - not available. Grenade launchers - not available. Coburn: Drones are available. Alan Estevez: No. Coburn: Airplanes are available. Alan Estevez: Airplanes are available. Cargo helicopters. Helicopters, not Apaches. Okay. Coburn: But but really you you can't tell us today how we make those decisions of what goes on the list and off the list. Alan Estevez: It's basically a common sense decision inside the department and then we do as I keep saying go back to the states. 50:15 Coburn: When something is removed from the list, and I don't know if you have any recent experience with this, are agencies are required to return the restricted equipment. Alan Estevez: That's why we retain title for what we call controlled equipment so that we can pull that equipment. 57:00 Alan Estevez: So as force structural changes, as our budget changes, things that we thought we would need, were are no longer needed. Or things that we bought for the war. And I'm not not talking about tactical rifles and like I'm talking about basic medical kits, that type of stuff may no longer be needed as we draw down force structure based on changing environment on the ground. PCA changes our force structure, things that we required will no longer be needed as that force structure changes. That's the basic reason. 58:30 Senator McCaskill: The Lake Angeles Police Department in Michigan, you gave them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. They have one full time sworn officer. So one officer now has 13 military grade assault weapons in their police department. How in the world can anyone say that this program has a one lick of oversight if those two things are in existence? Alan Estevez: I'll have to look into the details on each of those. The rule of thumb is one MRAP validated by the state coordinator for a police department that requests an MRAP no more than one. So I'd have to look at the incident in Senator Coburn's state. And same thing with rifles...weapons. Senator McCaskill: I will make part of the record the list we have a long list of law enforcement agencies that received three times as many 5.56 and 7.62 military grade weapons per for full time officer and this is a long list. 1:05:00 Senator Johnson: This program, which has apparently provided about $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997. It's all been free, correct? Alan Estevez: Yes. It's not free to the taxpayer. We bought it used it on... Senator Johnson: Free to local governments, correct? Alan Estevez: That's correct. Senator Johnson: Free local to police departments. Alan Estevez: Yes, sir, Senator. Senator Johnson: Do you know if too many police farms return free things down? Alan Estevez:Again, I'm not in the position of a local police department, but if something was available, and they thought they needed it, because they have to sustain this equipment, if they thought they needed it, and it was useful to them. Why not? 1:23:15 Rand Paul: In FEMAs authorized equipment lists, there's actually written descriptions for how the equipment should be used. And it says it's specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. Mr. Kamoie? Is that true that it's not supposed to be used for Riot suppression? And how do you plan in policing that since the images show us clearly, large pieces of equipment that were bought with your grants being used in that Riot suppression? Protest suppression, rather. Brian Kamoie: Senator Paul, that is accurate. The categories of personal protective equipment that include helmets, ear and eye protection, ballistics personal protective equipment, is a prohibition in the authorized equipment list that is not to be used for riot suppression. Rand Paul: And what will you do about it? Brian Kamoie: We're going to follow the lead of the Department of Justice's investigation about the facts. We're going to work for the state of Missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were grant funded, and then we have a range of remedies available to us. Should there be any finding of non compliance with those requirements. Those include everything from corrective action plans to ensure it doesn't happen again. recoupment of funds. So we'll look very closely at the facts. But we're going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. 1:25:20 Rand Paul: Mr. Estavez in the NPR investigation of the 1033 program, they list that 12,000 bayonets have been given out. What purpose are bayonets being given out for? Alan Estevez: Senator, bayonets are available under the program. I can't answer what a local police force would need a bayonet for. Rand Paul: I can give you an answer. None. So what's the what's President Obama's administration's position on handing out bayonets to the police force? It's on your list. You guys create the list. You're going to take it off the list. We're going to keep doing it. Alan Estevez: We are going to look at what we are providing under the administration's review of all these programs. Rand Paul: So it's unclear at this point whether President Obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out. I would think you can make that decision last week. Alan Estevez: I think we need to review all the equipment that we're providing Senator. And as I said, we the Department of Defense do not push any of this equipment on any police force. The states decide what they need. 1:26:00 Rand Paul: My understanding is that you have the ability to decide what equipment is given out and what equipments not given out. If you decided tomorrow, if President Obama decided tomorrow that mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles are not appropriate for cities in the United States. He could decide tomorrow to take it off the list. You could decide this tomorrow. My question is, what is the administration's opinion on giving out mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles to towns across America? Are you for it or against it? Alan Estevez: Obviously we do it senator we're going to look at that. I will also say that I can give you anecdotes for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that protected police forces in shootouts. Rand Paul: But we've already been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? Isn't that what the rule is? Alan Estevez: Our rule is for counter-drug, which could have been the shootout I'd have to look at the incident. Counter-narcotics counter-terrorism. 1:28:00 Rand Paul: The militarization of police is something that has gotten so far out of control and we've allowed it to descend along with a not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. So we say we're going to do this, it's okay if it's for drugs. Well look at the instances of what have happened in recent times. The instance in Georgia just a couple of months ago, of an infant in a crib getting a percussion grenade thrown in through a window in a no knock raid. Turns out the infant obviously wasn't involved in the drug trade, but neither was even the infant's family - happened to have been the wrong place the wrong time. No one's even been indicted on this. So really, this is crazy out of control and giving military equipment and with a breakdown of the whole idea of due process of no knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore. You can see how this gets out of control and people are very, very concerned with what is going on here. And I see the response so far to be lackluster, and I hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. Thank you. 1:32:20 Ayotte: Is there any coordination between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? Brian Kamoie: We don't coordinate in the decision making about local law enforcement requests. The process that Mr. Estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. 1:51:40 Peter Kraska: The clear distinction between our civilian police and military is blurring in significant and consequential ways. The research I've been conducting since 1989 has documented quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and certain marks of U.S. civilian policing down the militarization continuum. Culturally, materially, operationally, and organizationally, despite massive efforts at democratizing police, under the guise of community policing reforms, the growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep. In the mid 1980s, a mere 30% of police agencies had a SWAT team. Today well over 80% of departments, large and small, have one. In the early 1980s, these these agencies conducted approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. Today, I estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. And it is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private residences. This is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique departments across our great land, are heading in this direction. But the research evidence along with militarized tragedies in Modesto, Georgia, Ferguson and tens of thousands of other locations, demonstrates a troubling and highly consequential overall trend. What we saw played out in the Ferguson protests was the application of a very common mindset, style of uniform and appearance and weaponry used every day in the homes of private residences during SWAT raids. Some departments conduct as many as 500 SWAT team raids a year. And just as in the two examples above, and in the Ferguson situation, it is the poor and communities of color that are most impacted. 1:54:00 Peter Kraska: I mentioned that police militarization predates 911 this is not just an interesting historical fact it is critical because it illuminates the most important reason or causal factor in this unfortunate turn in American policing and American democracy. It is the following: our long running an intensely punitive self proclaimed war on crime and drugs. It is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police paramilitary deployments on American citizens since the early 1980s, coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment numbers. We now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this country, and almost 4% of the American public is now under direct correctional supervision. These wars have been devastating to minority communities and the marginalized and have resulted in a self perpetuating growth complex. Cutting off the supply of military weaponry to to our civilian public is the least we could do to begin the process of reining in police militarization and attempting to make clear the increasingly blurred distinction between the military and police. Please do not underestimate the gravity of this development. This is highly disturbing to most Americans on the left and the right. 1:57:30 Mark Lomax: The threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers and the public during violent critical incidents has proven that armored rescue vehicles have become an essential as individually worn body armor or helmets in saving lives. 2:11:30 Peter Kraska: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had been in place untouched for quite a long time until the 1980s drug war. And it wasn't until the 1980s drug war it was actually the Reagan administration that wanted to completely repealed Posse Comitatus. But what instead happened is they just amended it significantly, to allow for cross training and weapons transference. And just as an aside, I don't want to make too much of an aside, but we also have to remember that the Department of Defense has been very actively involved in training local police departments as well, not just providing them equipment, but providing them training. I've got a great quote that if you, I'm not going to read it now, but if you asked me to read it, I will. that talks about even having navy seals and Army Rangers come to a local police department and teach them things. So it's not just weapons transference. The federal government has increasingly since 911 played a significant role in accelerating these trends towards militarization. And, you know, the extent to which the 1033 program, Department of Homeland Security funds, etc, have contributed to it. I would certainly call it significant. But I think we have to remember that the that the militarized culture have a component of policing, and it's just a component of policing. This isn't a unified phenomenon at all of police in the United States of America. Hell, we have a police department right next to us, Lexington PD, very smart, very wise. They don't do this kind of thing at all, and they would never do it. So the police in communities a bit split over this. And I don't want anybody to get the impression because of the experts we've heard that policing is all for this stuff, because it's just not true. There are lots of folks that aren't. Anyway, back to federalisation. So, I think the federal government's played a significant role in probably the last 10 to 14 years. 2:14:10 Peter Kraska: This had everything to do with prosecuting the drug war. And that's when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the number of SWAT units but the amount of activity. That's when we saw departments doing 750 to 1000 drug raids per year on people's private residences. That's when we saw police departments all over the country in small little localities sending off two or three officers to a for profit training camp, like Smith and Wesson or Heckler and Koch getting training and coming back to the department and starting a 15 officer, police paramilitary unit with no clue what they were doing whatsoever. That all happened as a part of the drug war. 2:26:50 Peter Kraska: Oftentimes, these kind of conversations devolve into an either or type of argument. And it's really critical to recognize that there are absolutely lots of situations. Columbine, for example, where you have to have a competent professional response, a use of force specialist, military, Special Operations folks, police special, whatever you want to call them, you have to have that, no doubt. What I was talking about was 60,000 deployments, as I was not talking about 60,000 deployments. For those situations. Those situations are incredibly rare. Thank goodness, they're incredibly rare. Those situations absolutely require a competent response, active shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of situation. Our research demonstrated conclusively that 85% of SWAT team operations today are proactive, choice driven raids on people's private residences 85%. What that means is that the original function of SWAT in the 1970s was the idea that SWAT teams were to save lives, they were to respond in a laudable way to very dangerous circumstances and handle the circumstances well. What happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that function flipped on its head. We went from these teams predominantly doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of these in an entire municipality, one to two a year. Smaller jurisdictions, probably something like that wouldn't happen in 100 years, but they were there to handle it. This has devolved now into what I'm talking about widespread misapplication of the paramilitary model. 2:29:00 Peter Kraska: 50% of these small police departments... 50% of them are receiving less than 50 hours of training per year for their SWAT team. The recommended amount from the MTOA used to be 250. I think they've reduced it to 200. 250 hours versus 50 hours. These are not well trained teams. These are a localized 18,000 police departments all doing their own thing with no oversight and no accountability. And that's why we're seeing and we have seen hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that I've mentioned, but also lots of terrorized families that have been caught up in these drug operations and drug raids. Thank you. 2:35:30 Peter Kraska: Military gear and garb changes and reinforces a war fighting mentality amongst civilian police, where marginalized populations become the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a thin blue line between order and chaos that can only be controlled through military model power. 2:47:50 Peter Kraska: Most police departments that handle civil protests correctly know that the last thing you want to do is instigate. It was just a wonderful article written in the Washington Post, it interviewed a whole bunch of Chiefs of Police that understand this and how you sit back and you don't antagonize and you certainly don't display this level of weaponry. Hearing: , United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, March 20, 1991 Witnesses: John Dunne: Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division Transcript: 6:00 Rep. Howard Coble (NC): It would be my hope that this matter could be resolved internally in Los Angeles. The fear I have about what occurred on the coast is that many people are probably going to try to bash every law enforcement officer in the country. That's what bothers me. And I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of law enforcement in this country. 30:15 Rep. Henry Hyde (IL): I know civil rights prosecutions nationwide by year, compiled from annual Department of Justice Statistics, and in 1990, there was 7,960 complaints received and 3,050 investigations. I take it, a great number of the complaints were found to be without merit or beyond investigation, but cases presented to the grand jury or grand juries were only 46. So out of 3,050 investigations there were only 46 that you felt worth taking to a grand jury was that right. Mr. Dunn? John Dunne: Mr. Hyde in light of all of the circumstances, specifically, the key being whether or not the federal state interest had been vindicated. Yes, about one and a half percent, usually runs about 2% a year, of the complaints we receive actually go to prosecution. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD215: COVID-19 Testimony

1 juni 2020 | 103 min

When Congress (finally) returned from their COVIDcation, experts in medicine, vaccine development, law, and business testified under oath. In this episode, hear the highlights from 17 hours of that expert testimony during which you'll learn about a concerning new vaccine development policy, Mitch McConnell's dangerous demands for the next COVID-19 response law, and how Republicans and Democrats failed for the last two decades to secure the nation's medical mask supply. Thank you to all Congressional Dish producers who make the independence of this podcast possible. Enjoy your show! Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Articles/Documents Article: By Stephanie M. Lee, Buzz Feed News, May 30, 2020 Article: By Akela Lacy, The Intercept, May 26, 2020 Press Release: , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 21, 2020 Article: By Derek Thompson, The Atlantic, May 22, 2020 Article: By Eric Sagonowsky, Fierce Pharma, May 8, 2020 Article: By Jennifer Haberkorn, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2020 Article: , U.S. Food & Drug Administration, April 24, 2020 Article: By Emily Kopp, Roll Call, April 17, 2020 Article: By Julia Carrie Wong, The Guardian, April 17, 2020 Article: By Al Asyary and Merita Veruswati, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, 10 April 2020 Resources Tweet , Jennifer Briney, Twitter, May 27, 2020 Sound Clip Sources News Alert: , Axios, Fox News, May 18, 2020 Interview: , By Noah Manskar, The New York Post, Fox News, May 15, 2020 Hearing: , United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, May 14, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Richard Bright - Former Director of BARDA, current Senior Advisor at the National Institutes of Health Mike Bowen - Executive Vice President of Prestige Ameritech Transcript: 51:40 Rep. Ana Eshoo (CA): Was there a failure to respond with the needed urgency when you correctly pushed to ramp up production of masks, respirators, syringes, swabs. Dr. Rick Bright: Congresswoman, we've known for quite some time that our stockpile is insufficient and having those critical personal protective equipment. So once this virus began spreading and became known to be a threat, I did feel quite concerned that we didn't have those supplies. I began pushing urgently in January along with some industry colleagues as well. And those urges, those alarms were not responded to with action. 52:15 Rep. Ana Eshoo (CA): Was there a failure to take immediate action when you correctly push to acquire additional doses of the drug Remdesivir, which is the only drug so far that has appeared to be at least mildly effective, thank God, for treating people with COVID-19? Dr. Rick Bright: There was no action taken on the urgency to come up with a plan per acquisition of limited doses that Remdesivir nor to distribute those limited doses of Remdesivir once we had the scientific data to support their use for people infected with this virus. 1:04:00 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): My concern is, I'm very critical administration in terms of their I call it incompetence, with the supply chain, with lack of testing. I'm afraid the same thing is going to happen with vaccines and once it's in the distribution. I mean, should I be concerned based on your experience? Dr. Rick Bright: Absolutely, sir. We're already seeing those challenges with limited doses of Remdesivir with data that we're getting that Remdesivir has some benefit in people. And we have limited doses and we haven't scaled up production and we don't have a plan and how to fairly and equitably distribute that drug. If you can imagine this scenario, this fall or winter, maybe even early next spring, when vaccine becomes available. There's no one company that can produce enough for our country or for the world. It's gonna be limited supplies. We need to have a strategy and plan in place now to make sure that we can not only feel that vaccine, make it, distribute it, but administer it in a fair and equitable plan. And that's not the case at all. We don't have that yet and it is a significant concern. 1:11:50 Dr. Rick Bright: Normally it takes up to 10 years to make a vaccine. We've done it faster in emergency situations. But from when we had starting material in the freezer for Ebola, but for a novel virus is actually haven't been done yet that quickly. So a lot of optimism is swirling around a 12 to 18 month timeframe. If everything goes perfectly - we've never seen everything go perfectly. My concern is if we rush too quickly and considered cutting out critical steps, we may not have a full assessment of the safety of that vaccine. So it's still going to take some time. I still think 12 to 18 months is an aggressive schedule. And I think it's going to take longer than that to do so. Rep. Eliott Engel (NY): 12 to 18 months from now, or 12 to 18 months from when this all started at the beginning of the year? Dr. Rick Bright: It will be 12 to 18 months from when the particular manufacturers has first received the material or information that they need to start developing that vaccine. It's critical to note when we say 12 to 18 months. That doesn't mean for an FDA approved vaccine. That means to have sufficient data and information on the safety and immunogenicity if not efficacy, to be able to use on an emergency basis. And that is a consideration that we have in mind when we talk about an accelerated timeline. 1:14:20 Dr. Rick Bright: Congressmen our concern's centered around the potential use of chloriquine in people who are infected with this Coronavirus. There are data, the effective use and safe use of chloriquine in malaria patients and other patients and other indications. We also knew that there are potential safety risks with chloriquine they cause irregular heart rhythms, and even in some cases death. So our concern was with limited information and knowledge, especially of its use in COVID-19 infected patients and the potential for those risks, then we should make sure that any studies with that drug are done in a carefully controlled clinical study and a close watchful eye of a physician so they could respond to a patient if they did experience one of those adverse events. There wasn't sufficient data at that time to support use of this drug in patients with COVID-19 without close physician supervision. Rep. Eliott Engel (NY): And when you raised that issue of chloriquine use in Coronavirus patients with HHS leadership. What happened to you you removed as a director of BARDA. Is that not true? Dr. Rick Bright: I believe part of that removal process for me was initiated because of a push back that I forgave when they asked me to put in place an expanded access protocol that would make chloriquine more freely available to Americans that were not under the close supervision of a physician and may not even be confirmed to be infected with the coronavirus. The sciences, FDA, BARDA, NIH and CDC worked hard to switch that to a emergency use authorization with strict guardrails that the patients would be in a hospital confirmed to be infected with this virus under close supervision of a doctor and who could not otherwise participate in a randomized controlled study. My concerns were alleviated somewhat by being able to lock that in the stockpile with those conditions. However, my concerns were escalated when I learned that leadership in the department health and human services were pushing to make that drug available outside of this emergency use authorization to flood New York, New Jersey with this drug, regardless of the EUA and when I spoke outside of our government and shared my concerns for the American public, that I believe was the straw that broke the camel's back and escalated my removal. 1:47:15 Rep. Kathy Castor (FL): Dr. Bright you understood that America would face a shortage of respirators in January? Is that right? Dr. Rick Bright: We understood America would face a shortage of N95 respirators for a pandemic response in 2007. And we have exercise and known and evaluated that number almost every year since 2007. It was exercised even as late as early as 2019, August in Crimson contagion, that we would need 3.5 billion in 95 respirators in our stockpile to protect our healthcare workers from a pandemic response. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL): And you sounded the alarm repeatedly. But were ignored by the senior leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services. Please explain what steps you took and the responsibilities you received. Dr. Rick Bright: We knew going into this pandemic that critical medical equipment would be in short supply. I began getting alerts from industry colleagues in mid and late January, telling me that from an outside view, from the industry view that the supply chain was diminishing rapidly telling me that other countries that we relied on to supply many of these masks were blocking export and stopping transfer of those masks to the United States. I learned that China was trying to buy the equipment from the United States producers to have it shipped to China so they could make more. In each of these alerts, and there were dozens of these alerts, I pushed those forward to our leadership and asked for Dr. Cadillac and his senior leadership team. I pushed those warnings to our critical infrastructure protection team. I pushed those warnings to our Strategic National Stockpile team who has the responsibility of procuring those medical supplies for our stockpile. In each of those. I was met with indifference, saying they were either too busy they didn't have a plan. They didn't know who was responsible for procuring those. In some cases they had a sick child and we'll get back to it later in the week. A number of excuses, but never any action. It was weeks after my pushing that finally a survey was sent out to manufacturers or producers of those masks. A five page survey asking producers or companies if they actually made those masks. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL): In your whistleblower filing you discuss a February 7th meeting of the department leadership group, but which you urge the department to focus on securing and 95 masks. Can you describe what happened at that meeting? Dr. Rick Bright: They informed me that they did not say believe there was a critical urgency to procure mass. They conducted some surveys, talked to a few hospitals and some companies and they didn't yet see a critical shortage. And I indicated that we know there will be a critical shortage of these supplies. We need to do something to ramp up production. They indicated if we notice there is a shortage that we will simply change the CDC guidelines to better inform people who should not be wearing those masks. So that would save those masks for healthcare workers. My response was, I cannot believe you can sit and say that with a straight face. That was an absurd. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL): In fact, it took three months from your initial warnings - until mid April for the federal government to invoke its authority under the Defense Production Act, to require the production of millions of more N-95 masks. And even then, the administration required the production of only 39 million masks which is far fewer than you and other experts said that we would need. What was the consequence of this three month delay and inadequate response. Were lives in danger? Dr. Rick Bright: Lives were in danger and I believe lives were lost. And not only that, we were forced to procure the supplies from other countries without the right quality standards. So even our doctors and nurses in the hospitals today are wearing N-95 Mark masks from other countries that are not providing the sufficient protection that a US standard N-95 mask would provide them. Some of those masks are only 30% effective. Therefore, nurses are rushing in the hospitals thinking they're protected and they're not. 2:15:50 Dr. Rick Bright: I believe there's a lot of work that we still need to do. And I think we need still, I don't think I know, we need still a comprehensive plan and everyone across the government and everyone in America needs to know what that plan is and what role they play. There are critical steps that we need to do to prepare for that fall, for that winter coming. We do not still have enough personal protective equipment to manage our healthcare workers and protect them from influenza and COVID-19. We still do not have the supply chains ramped up for the drugs and vaccines and we still don't have plans in place on how we distribute those drugs and vaccines. And we still do not have a comprehensive testing strategy. So Americans know which tests do what, what to do with that information. And we know how to find this virus and trap it and kill it. There's a lot of work we still have to do. 3:40:15 Dr. Rick Bright: I think what's really interesting about the testing story that gets lost in the narrative sometimes is the confusion about the different types of tests. There's an antigen test that tells you if you have the virus in you, there's a PCR test, it says it may the fragments of the virus and there's antibody tests, it looks at your antibody titer to try to tell you you've been exposed already maybe immune to that the virus. There's a lot of confusion, I think the first thing HHS needs to do is determine which of those tests is most important to achieve which objective. If the antigen test is was needed, because it's faster and lower cost, and more readily available, in some cases, what does it tell Americans? What does it tell employers? What does it tell schools about the potential for an individual who has a positive or negative on that test and their potential to have different results the next day or later that day? There's a lot of confusion about these tests. So I think the first thing that HHS should do is determine the type of test and how that test would be used effectively. And then make sure that we have enough of those types of tests and they're in the right place and the people using them know what the data tells them and how to use it effectively. I think there's a lot of confusion there and they need leadership in HHS to distinguish those challenges and clarify that for the American public. 3:41:30 Rep. Blunt Rochester (DE): Why do you think that our nation has struggled with ramping up the testing capacity, unlike other countries, and were there contingencies in place or a backup, in light of this situation we're in now. Dr. Rick Bright: I think part of the struggle is waiting too late to think about it and to get it started. When we've had conversations with some manufacturers, they've been very creative and how they can ramp up. Another part of the challenge is, we have allowed many of these capabilities to be offshore. And so we have much more capability of expanding domestic capacity when it's in our country, and we can ramp up and bring innovation to those companies in the US. But if the supply chain is offshore, and there's a global need and competition for that supply chain, that also significantly impairs our ability to ramp up. 3:47:30 Dr. Rick Bright: We need to have a strategy that everyone follows, the same strategy, to test for the word the viruses who's infected with this virus. And then we have to appropriately isolate that person in quarantine so they don't infect others. And we rapidly need to trace their contacts to understand who they may have been exposed to, and be able to test to those individuals. And if they've been infected as well, we need to be able to isolate those. Through a concerted coordinated effort across the country, we can be able to identify where that virus is who's been exposed, give those people proper treatment and isolation and can slow the spread of this virus significantly. But that has to be in a coordinated way. We have to have the right tests and enough of those tests. It's not something we do once and we're done. It's something we have to continually do in the community. So it's not just that we need one test for every person in America. We need multiple tests and the right types of tests. We need the right types of individuals and professionals who know how to use those tests to trace the individual contacts and to isolate that virus and stop it from spreading. 4:11:00 Mike Bowen: Until 2004, 90% of all surgical masks worn and I'm including surgical respirators, were domestically made. That year, or about around that year. All of the major domestic mask sellers switched from selling domestically made masks to selling imported masks. Prestige Ameritech was founded in 2005 recognized this as a security issue in 2006. We thought that once America's hospitals learned that their mask supplies were subject to diversion by foreign governments, during pandemics, they would switch back to U.S. made masks. We were wrong. In November of 2007, we received a phone call from BARDA asking for a tour of our mask factory. BARDA was acting on George W. Bush's Presidental Directive 21, the purpose of which was to review America's disaster plans. Brenda Hayden with BARDA gave a presentation which showed that BARDA was concerned about the foreign controlled mask supply. We were thrilled that BARDA had discovered the issue until Brenda said that BARDA was only charged with studying the problem. We were disappointed but we took consolation in the fact that finally, a federal agency knew that the mask supply was in danger. We were very happy to have an ally. Two years later, I received a call from Brenda Hayden. She started the conversation by saying, we have a situation. Her serious tone caused me to ask her if she was talking about a pandemic. And she said, Yes. She asked if we could ramp up production, and I said yes. We built more machines bought an abandoned Kimberly Clark mask factory and tripled and tripled our workforce. America's hospitals needed us and we rose to the occasion. We told them about the high cost of ramping up. And they said they would stay with us. Unfortunately most returned to buying cheaper foreign made masks when they became available. The company survived by laying off 150 people who helped save the US mask supply by taking pay cuts. And by taking on more investors. The H1N1 pandemic, this is 2009 2010, wasn't severe enough to cause the foreign health officials to cut off mask shipments to America. So our predictions didn't come true...yet. In a weakened state, but undaunted, Prestige Ameritech continued saying that the US mask supply was headed for failure. We just didn't know when. In 2004 to give my security story more issue, I formed the Secure Mask Supply Association. You can find it at securemasksupply.org. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, I told three competing domestic mask makers that if we didn't hang together, we would hang separately, as China was poised to put all of us out of business and put the country at even greater risk, Crosstex, Gerson, and Medecom all with domestic mask making factories agreed and joined the SMSA. Unfortunately, the Secure Mask Supply Associations warnings were also unheeded. During my quest to secure the US mask supply, I had the privilege of working with three BARDA directors, Dr. Robin Robinson, Dr. Richard Hatchet, and Dr. Rick Bright. They were helpful and they encouraged me to go continue warning people about the mask supply. I'll say a little bit more about that. After years of doing this, I quit many times. And the only reason I kept doing it is because of the directors of BARDA. They would encourage me and asked me not to not to quit. They said that they would express their concerns about the masks supply to anyone that I could get to call them. Anyone except reporters. They weren't allowed to talk to reporters, which was very frustrating to me. They also weren't allowed to endorse the Secure Mask Supply Association. Dr. Robinson was going to do so until HHS attorneys told him that it could cost him his job. He called me personally on vacation to tell me that I can confirm that the emails and Dr. Bright's complaint are mine. They are merely the latest of 13 years of emails I sent to BARDA in an effort to get HHS to understand that the US mask supply was destined for failure, Robinson, Hatchet and Bright all wanted to remedy the problem. In my opinion, they didn't have enough authority. Their hearts were in the right places. America was told after 911 that governmental silos had been torn down so that different federal federal agencies could work together for national securities. But I didn't see any of that. The DOD, the VA, the CDC and HHS could have worked together to secure America's mask supply. I suggested this to BARDA and to the CDC on several occasions. 4:23:00 Rep. Greg Walden (OR): This is your email to Dr. Bright and to Laura wolf. It says and I quote, "my government strategy is to help the US government if and only if the VA and DOD become my customers after this thing is over. Mike Bowen: Yes, sir. Rep. Greg Walden (OR): So Madam Chair, I'd like to submit the mail for the record. We'll send you an electronic copy as per our agreements here. Now, Mr. Cohen, I'm sorry. You said you want to help the U.S. government, you want to help Americans get the masks. Yet it appears that there seems to be a condition here. I assume that's because in the past, you ramped up, things went away, people bought from other manufacturers. And so here you're saying, and I have it here in the email, 'My strategy is to help my existing customers and bring on new customers who are willing to sign a long term contract. My government strategy is to help the US government if and only if the VA and DOD become my customers after this thing is over.' And here we were in a crisis is masks are going overseas now. The US government's not your only purchaser, right? Mike Bowen: The U.S. government has never bought from me except during a pandemic, sir. Rep. Greg Walden (OR): Okay. And so... Mike Bowen: In that email, and that statement, was basically saying that I don't want the government to only call me in a pandemic. Give me business during peacetime so that I can survive to help you during a pandemic. Rep. Greg Walden (OR): Did you ever ask for a sole source contract? Mike Bowen: I have. I have been on the DOD and the VA business. And I continually lose to masks that are made in Mexico, because the DOD does not obey the Berry Amendment. They buy foreign masks made in Mexico, because Mexico is a friend of ours and is called a TAA compliant country. Made the decision based on price... Rep. Greg Walden (OR): How long...Sir, if I may, can I reclaim my time? How long, you said you couldn't turn on these lines of manufacturing very quickly. How long? If you got a big order from the government today, would it take you to produce masks? Mike Bowen: Three or four months and the government wants to do that right now. HHS is asking me to do that. Rep. Greg Walden (OR): And it will take three to four months? Mike Bowen: Yes, I'm told. I told him it's going to take three or four months. They only want masks to the end of the year. So I would have to hire 100 people to train 100 people and then fire them at the end of the program. I'm not going to do that. Again. I don't want the government to only deal with me when... Rep. Greg Walden (OR): My time is expired. Madam Chair, I yield back. 4:29:45: *Mike Bowen:** Let me say this: China sells a box of masks for $1. I don't think anybody's making any profit doing that, because I sell them for about $5. So if their prices are so cheap that they've captured most of the world's mass market. Rep. Elliot Engel (NY): Does the government subsidize the Chinese government, the Beijing government? Mike Bowen: I don't know that. I don't know. All I know is their masks cost less than than materials. If I take my labor costs totally out, I'm still nowhere near the cost of their products. 4:30:30 Rep. Elliot Engel (NY): What steps can the federal government take to incentivize more medical manufacturing of critical equipment like surgical face masks in the United States? Mike Bowen: Well as in a letter that I sent to President Obama, I don't think it requires money. I think it requires the government saying and it's a national security problem. It requires the CDC telling America's hospitals, they are too dependent on foreign aid masks, and put them in legal liability. They have to protect their patients and staff. If in a public forum like this, you say, this is a national security issue, then those hospitals' attorneys are probably going to get on the ball and tell their hospitals to buy American made products. And they don't cost that much. The whole market is only a couple of hundred million dollars. This whole problem, this is a $30 million problem, folks, just for people trying to save pennies across the whole United States. It's not some multibillion dollar problem. 4:36:20 Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): Mike Bowen: You thought it was necessary to go through Dr. Bright. You couldn't get anybody else to listen to them and Dr. Bright under No, no, no, you got it all wrong. First of all I wasn't looking for I'm just trying to find the information. Oh yeah. I wasn't looking for business. I opened my email. I don't need your business. My phones are ringing off the wall. I'm just I thought of BARDA - Dr. Robinson, Dr. hatchet and Dr. Bright. I thought of them as brothers in arms, and who they couldn't buy my products. I knew that. But they were the only people who believed it. I would like everybody to go to YouTube, put in Michael Burgess and Prestige Ameritech you'll see Mr. Burgess talking at our factory 10 years ago. You'll see him say that only 10% of the mask supplies are made in the United States. I talked to Michael Burgess. Ron Wright. Joe Barton. Patrick Leahy. My associate Matt Conlin talked to Chuck Schumer. I wrote Barack Obama letters, wrote President Trump and everybody in his early administration, Defense Secretary Mattis, General Jeffrey Clark, Nicole Lurie and Anita Patel with CDC, National Academies of Science. Greg Burrell, hundreds of hospitals, hospital purchasing groups, the hospital risk Managers Association. The hospital risk managers Association. Told them the mask supply is going to collapse, this is a risk. Nobody listened. Association of Operating Nurses, the Defense Department, the Veterans Department, Texas Governor Rick Perry. State Texas Rep. Bill Zedler, by the way, Bill Zedler got in dozens of reporters. I've been in every news show. I've done this for 13 years. Nobody listened. And my conscience is clean, Mr. Guthrie. I've been working on this damn issue for 13 years trying to save lives. Nobody listened. And now, I'm not going to take any of this. 4:46:20 Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): We can't guarantee you a contract. I think everybody agrees we've got to have more made in America. Why not ramp up with the understanding that the policy is likely to change? I think it will change because I think we don't, whether it be masks or other PPE or drug supply, we're going to have to have a significant portion of these items made in the United States going forward. Knowing that, and your phone's ringing off the hook, why not ramp up those four lines? Mike Bowen: Because one day, the pandemics gonna end and the the usage will go down to the basement again, where it was there'll be 10 times less usage. And I'll have all these machines and people and these materials and have nothing to do with them. That's what happened to us before. It was a very difficult thing to ramp up. And let me say this again, let me remind you that we have ramped up. We've gone from making 75,000 respirators I'm going to about four... In 40 days, we'll be ramped up to making 4 million respirator per month. So don't concentrate on these four Chinese machines that we really don't know much about and would be a total pain to get going on top of... I'm trying not to kill my business partner who is in charge of getting all this stuff done. He's working 20 hours a day now with all the projects we've already got now, to dump this on top for some business that may or may not come? Absolutely not. 4:48:40 Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): Okay, after H1N1 did you continue to produce masks for purposes of restocking the Strategic National Stockpile? Mike Bowen: I can't do that without the Strategic National Stockpile wanting to buy them. Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA):Did you have conversations with BARDA, SNS and HHS at that time about supplying the masks for the National Stockpile? Mike Bowen: I have talked to Greg Burrell on many occasions, sir. I've also offered those machines to him. And I've offered those machines to the Department of Defense. Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): You're just gonna give the machines or you're gonna give them the production? Mike Bowen: No, listen to this. Here's what I wanted to do. I wanted CDC and VA and DOD to get together I had four machines, that very little money and that could make a whole bunch of masks and for years, and I got 13 years worth of emails, I can document all this stuff. I said to the CDC Hey, we can fix, we can make sure that the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration always has masks. I got these four machines sitting here doing nothing. Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): You were willing to give them the production, but not the machines. Mike Bowen: Let me finish. Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): I'm just trying to sort it out. Mike Bowen: Well here's what I was gonna say. We must use one machine, you'll make your whole annual usage for one machine, and we'll let three of them sit there in our factory just ready to go. When you need them, we can turn those things on and I couldn't get anybody interested in Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): Were you going to give them to them or lease them? Mike Bowen: Didn't matter. I didn't have any money in them. I said give me your peacetime military hospital business and we'll give you these machines. I'll just sit there. Now we would have if we would have had had some kind of a plan, you know, to get materials and things like that. But I was basically saying we've got a warm base operation is not going to cost you guys anything. I made that offer to several agencies. Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA): I see my time is up. I yield back, Madam Chair. Mike Bowen: And by the way, let me Forgive me for being angry. I'm angry because I've done this for so, so long. And I've been ignored for so long. And I apologize. Rep. Ana Eshoo (CA): Well, Mr. Bowen, I don't think you need to apologize. At least that's my view. I think shame on us. I think shame on all of us that we've allowed this to happen. 4:58:30 Mike Bowen: America has a weakness for low prices. And I think Chinese prices are so low. A few years ago, I decided to go buy a 12 things from Lowe's Lowe's Home Improvement center, and I decided I was going to pay whatever it took to buy American. I couldn't make that decision. That decision was taken away from me. I bought one item, it was a plunger. A toilet plunger was the only thing I could find it was made in America. And it is what it is. It's the people like the Lowe's and Home Depot and the Walmarts and the medical companies that the way they want to make money is to lower their costs to where they lower their cost to go to China. The line is long and wide for people going to China, and that's why we're dependent on them for everything. I mean, go out and look in your closet. Look at your tools, look at everything. It's all from China. And the stuff that's in Mexico... When I say this, half of the US mask supply's in Mexico, it's got reservations to go to China. Mexico is not cheap enough. And hospitals are cash strapped and they're they're bidding out things. If this hadn't happened, Mexico would have lost their business and everything... China would have been five years China would have made all masks and respirators like they do the gowns. 5:35:40 Mike Bowen: I've dealt with this thing for so long and it's been so illogical. And I've tried to figure it out and who's at fault who's at fault. And so people ask me that, who's to blame? And I got to the point where it's human nature. It's all of us. I couldn't convince doctors. I couldn't. Listen to this. I had three directors of BARDA said that, Mike, if you get somebody to call me, I will verify that what you're saying is true. I'll tell them it was true. Mr. Schrader, I couldn't get him to call. I couldn't get hospitals to make that call. I don't think they wanted to hear it. They're programmed to save money. They're not programmed to say, I want to make sure my masks are gonna be here. It didn't compute. I was speaking Greek everyone. So to look at this story, and look back and blame everybody, I'm not even going to do that. I'm looking at this pandemic. There's a silver lining, the silver lining is - told everybody there's a big problem. And we can fix this problem and never go through this again. 5:50:00 Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): I'm still confused about your current capabilities. You said you've got four lines that are just sitting dormant sitting in the right now, is that correct? Mike Bowen: We have four idle respirator manufacturing lines. Yes, sir. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): And they're just, I mean, they're not being used right now. Mike Bowen: Yes. But...go ahead, finish your question. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): Yes, they are not being used, right. Correct? So you said you've already gotten machines for those lines. You don't have to procure them. The only thing you're going to have to do is to get staff in order to use those lines. Mike Bowen: No, now there's three things we need to hire 100 people, we need to train 100 people. We need to get all the materials for that and we need to get NIOSH approval. We bought those systems from a defunct Vermont mask company seven years ago, we really don't even know how to use those machines. They're kind of a last resort. And if you'll go back and look at my email to Dr. Bright, I said this would be a basically a pain to do but they're here. And if we need this for infrastructure, let's talk about it. But what we've done in the meantime, is we've gone from making 75,000 respirators a month. Think of that number 75,000 to 2 million, and then in another 40 days, we'll be at 4 million from 75,000. So that's thousands and thousands of percent. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): You said you bought those you bought them for a purpose. You bought them to use them, right? Mike Bowen: No. Thank you for asking that question. No, they came as part of an acquisition we bought. We bought a defunct a medical company and those machines came as part of the acquisition. And made in China. But go ahead. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): Did you say earlier that you phones ringing off the hook you got orders coming out of the yazoo? Mike Bowen: Yeah, okay, but I can't go on a suicide mission. I can't ramp up, hire all these people for something that I don't know how it's going to end or how long it's going to last. And we did this. You gotta remember, we almost went out of business doing this before. We ramped up and we spent money and got a bigger factory, hired 150 people, built more machines. And then one day, the business not only went away, it went smaller than it was. And we had to raise a million dollars. We had to take pay cuts, and we had to fire 150 people. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): So what you're saying, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm saying I'm not gonna use them, you're not gonna fire them up unless you get a long term contract from the government. Mike Bowen: I'm not going on a suicide mission. Absolutely. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): So that's yes, you're not going to use them unless you get a long term contract... Mike Bowen: Unless I get a customer who is going to commit to use those machines so I don't have to fire 100 people. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): So that means that you'd have to have a long term contract from the government in order to do it. Mike Bowen: Yeah. Listen, we've gone from one shift to 3. 80 people to 200. We're making four times the products we made. We're making over a million masks a day, don't you look at me, and act like I'm sitting on my ass and not firing up four machines. It's not like just turning on a switch. It's putting people's lives... It's gonna, I'm not sure...Listen...let me tell you this. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): I understand. I'm a businessman. And I understand what it takes Mike Bowen: I watched my business partner cry when he had to lay those people off. We're not doing that again. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): So in order so it's gonna have to be a long term contract from the government, though, that that's my point. Mike Bowen: From somebody. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): And I get it from somebody Mike Bowen: I can't hire 100 people based on a maybe based on a when's it gonna end who knows? Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): None of us can whether we're in the private sector or the public sector, we can't do that. We all understand that. Mike Bowen: You don't. You're not risking your livelihood and your... Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): I risked my livelihood for 30 years. As an independent retail pharmacist, I never had long... Mike Bowen: You want to buy machines or hire 100 people, I'll tell you what, I'll give you my machines if you want to hire 100 people, Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): But but the point is, is that you're here saying that I'm not gonna do it unless I get a long term contract from the government. Mike Bowen: I'm just gonna wait, no, no, no, go back to the context. The context of that was in those emails in hey, here's four machines. Let's... they're here, but I can't turn them on unless it's a long term deal. I'm not just going to flip them on and have you flip them off and leave me hanging like everybody did last time. And let me tell you what happened last time, the government sits around doesn't buy American made products, comes to me in a pandemic buys millions of masks. In 2010, you know what they do for those masks, they stored them for 10 years, then they auction them to some knucklehead who put them on eBay and sold them for 10 times what they were worth. So not only did I... have I not seen the government in 10 years, I got to compete with my own masks. And I gotta have thousands of phone calls to me from people who bought that 10 year old masks of mine on eBay for 10 times the price yelling at me, and I had nothing to do with it because the government waited and sold this stuff. I've been hit from every side on this thing. We have bled for this country. We have created jobs, we put our factory in Texas when everybody else had already left the country. So don't don't sit here and judge me for four machines that aren't running that I'd have to hire and fire 100 people for. I'm not going to do it. Rep. Buddy Carter (GA): Not unless you have a long term government contract. Rep. Anna Eshoo, Chairwoman: The gentleman's time has expired. Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, May 12, 2020 Witnesses Kevin Smartt - CEO of Kwik Chek Convenience Stores Anthony “Marc” Perrone - International President of United Food and Commercial Workers International Rebecca Dixon - Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project Leroy Tyner - General Counsel for Texas Christian University Professor David Vladeck - A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Prodecure at * Georgetown University Law Center Helen Hill - CEO of Explore Charleston Transcript: 13:15 Professor David Vladeck: My name is David Vladek. I teach at Georgetown Law School mostly litigation related courses. And I spent more than 40 years as a litigator, mostly in state and federal court. Like all Americans, I am anxious to get the nation back on its feet. I applaud the committee for exploring ways to facilitate that process. And I can only imagine the heavy burden that weighs on your shoulders. As my testimony makes clear, businesses like Mr. Smarts that act reasonably to safeguard employees, and the public are already protected from liability. But as all of the panelists have said, We urgently need science-based COVID-19 enforceable guidelines from our public health agencies. Those guidelines not only safeguard the public, but at the same time, they provide the standards of liability that Mr. Tyner was just talking about compliance with those guidelines will eliminate any liability risk. On the other hand, it would be counterproductive for Congress to take the unprecedented act of bestowing immunity on companies that act irresponsibly. Workers and consumers are going to open this economy, not government sponsored immunity. We all know that large segments of the public are still justifiably fearful about reopening. Granting immunity would only feed those fears. Immunity sends the message that precautions to control the spread of virus is not a priority. Even worse, immunity signals to workers and consumers that they go back to work or they go to the grocery store at their peril. Why? Because the Congress has given employers and businesses a free pass the short change safety. 16:30 Professor David Vladeck: The line between unreasonable or negligent misconduct, and gross misconduct is murky, context based, and fact dependent. Any tort claim can constitute gross negligence, depending on the wrongdoer state of mind. Second, differentiating between the two tiers of liability turn on intent, questions of intent, questions of intent are factual questions for a jury, not a judge to resolve and conduct is labeled negligent or grossly negligent only at the end of a case, not at the outset. In other words, we don't know for sure whether conduct is grossly negligent until the jury says so. And third, and most importantly, the difference is utterly meaningless if we care about containing the spread of the virus. Irresponsible acts spread the virus just as easily, just as effectively as reckless acts. 17:45 Professor David Vladeck: Legislation that simply displaces state liability laws is not only unprecedented, it is likely unconstitutional. 30:40 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA): ...how the corona virus spreads? How could a customer of... Well, given how it spreads, nobody really knows how, could a customer of a particular business prove they were infected at a particular business? If professor Vladeck could respond, I believe he's our legal counsel here. Professor David Vladeck: Yes. So the answer is they can't. See are the viruses so transmissible, that it's very difficult unless you have a situation like you've had in the meatpacking plant to know where the virus comes from. In New York, one of the findings was that even people who had been housebound for a long time contracted the virus, even though they hadn't gone out. And so part of the reason why there have been almost no tort cases, about COVID-19 people have bandied about figures, but the truth is, they're been almost none of these cases and they're likely to be very few, because in order to plead a case in court, you have to be able to establish causation. And if someone who's been out and about walking on the streets, visiting the grocery store, visiting another shop, contracts virus, there's no way in the world they're going to be able to say, it's Mr. Smith's fault. 43:45 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): Some people are talking about this wave of COVID-19 litigation as the justification for corporate immunity. Actually about 6% of the COVID-19 related lawsuits are tort related, constantly seeking immunity for 6%. And moreover, the corporation's claiming they need this immunity are often the ones that subjected the employees to mandatory arbitration clause, we know those almost always favor the employer. So, can you tell us how the prevalence of mandatory arbitration clauses actually within or across key industries impacts the likelihood of a so called wave litigation? Rebecca Dixon: Yes, Senator, I would say that the wave of litigation is actually mostly businesses suing other businesses and businesses trying to enforce insurance contracts related to the pandemic. So that's one important thing to put out there. And when you have forced arbitration, you must go through a secret process with an arbitrator. So you are barred from going to court. And we know that employees are being coerced into signing these if they don't sign those, they don't get the job. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): So the additional shield against losses would pretty much be done with, is that correct? Rebecca Dixon: Correct. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): Thank you. 1:25:15 Rebecca Dixon: For workers in particular, right now, they don't really have any enforceable recourse if their employer is not following the guidelines because they're not enforceable. And if they are injured because of it, they have the workers compensation system or they can file an OSHA complaint, but they're pretty much locked out other than that, so that's going to make it really risky for workers to when they're making a choice between wages and their health to choose to come back to the workplace. 1:36:00 Sen. Chris Coons (DE): Let's just clear the deck on this one. Mr. Smart, Professor, excuse me, President if I could Perrone, do you believe the federal government has set clear, consistent science based enforceable standards for what's expected of employers to protect the safety of their workers during a pandemic? Kevin Smartt: I do not believe so. No. Sen. Chris Coons (DE): Mr. President? Anthony “Marc” Perrone: Senator, I don't think that they've done that for the employees or the customers. 2:08:04 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In 49 states employers are required to carry workers compensation insurance. Is that correct? Rebecca Dixon: Yes, that's correct. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And is it correct that by and large businesses that carry workers compensation cannot be sued by their workers for negligence? Rebecca Dixon: That's also correct. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And is it also correct that forced arbitration agreements also prohibit workers from seeking justice in courtrooms? Rebecca Dixon: That's also correct. Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, May 12, 2020 Witnesses Anthony Fauci - Director National of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health Robert Redfield - Director of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Admiral Brett Giroir - Assistant Secretary For Health at the United States Department of Health and Human Services Stephen Hahn - Commissioner of Food and Drugs at the United States Food and Drug Administration Transcript: 46:45 Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Let's look down the road three months, there'll be about 5,000 campuses across the country trying to welcome 20 million college students. 100,000 Public Schools welcoming 50 million students. What would you say to the Chancellor of the University of Tennessee Knoxville, or the principal of a public school about how to persuade parents and students to return to school in August? Let's start with treatments and vaccines first, Dr. Fauci, and if you can save about half of my five minutes for Admiral Giroir's testing I would appreciate it. Anthony Fauci: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, I would be very realistic with the chancellor and tell him that when we're thinking in terms. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): It's a her in this case. Anthony Fauci: I would tell her, I'm sorry, sir, that in this case, that the idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate the re-entry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far. 48:30 Anthony Fauci: But we're really not talking about necessarily treating a student who gets ill, but how the student will feel safe in going back to school. If this were a situation where we had a vaccine, that would really be the end of that issue in a positive way, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks, even at the top speed we're going, we don't see a vaccine playing in the ability of individuals to get back to school this term. 52:50 Anthony Fauci: What we have worked out is a guideline framework of how to safely open America again. And there are several checkpoints in that with a gateway first of showing, depending on the dynamics of an outbreak in a particular region, state, city or area that would really determine the speed and the pace with which one does re enter or reopen. So my word has been, and I've been very consistent in this, that I get concerned, if you have a situation with a dynamics of an outbreak in an area such that you are not seeing that gradual over 14 days decrease that would allow you to go to phase one. And then if you pass the checkpoints of phase one, go to phase two and phase three. What I've expressed then and again, is my concern that if some areas city states or what have you jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely opened up without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently. My concern is that we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks. 54:30 Anthony Fauci: But this is something that I think we also should pay attention to, that states, even if they're doing it at an appropriate pace, which many of them are and will, namely a pace that's commensurate with the dynamics of the outbreak, that they have in place already The capability that when there will be cases, there is no doubt, even under the best of circumstances. When you pull back on mitigation, you will see some cases appear. It's the ability and the capability of responding to those cases, with good identification, isolation and contact tracing will determine whether you can continue to go forward as you try to reopen America. 1:05:40 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): The official statistic, Dr. Fauci is that 80,000 Americans have died from the pandemic. There are some epidemiologists who suggests the number may be 50% higher than that. What do you think? Anthony Fauci: I'm not sure, Senator Sanders if it's gonna be 50% higher, but most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number, because given the situation, particularly in New York City, when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their healthcare system, that there may have been people who died at home, who did have COVID, who are not counted as COVID because they never really got to the hospital. So the direct answer to your question, I think you are correct, that the number is likely higher. I don't know exactly what percent higher, but almost certainly, it's higher. 1:26:30 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): You've stated publicly that you'd bet at all that survivors of Coronavirus have some form of immunity. Can you help set the record straight that the scientific record as is as being accumulated is supportive? That infection with Coronavirus likely leads to some form of immunity. Dr. Fauci? Anthony Fauci: Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator Paul. Yes, you're correct. That I have said that, given what we know about the recovery from viruses, such as Corona viruses in general, or even any infectious disease, with very few exceptions, that when you have antibody present is very likely indicates a degree of protection. I think it's in the semantics of how this is expressed. When you say has it been formally proven by long term Natural History studies, which is the only way that you can prove one is it protective, which I said and would repeat is likely that it is, but also what is the degree or titer of antibody that gives you that critical level of protection. And what is the durability, as I've often said, and again, repeat, you can make a reasonable assumption that it would be protective. But Natural History studies over a period of months to years will then tell you definitively if that's the case. 1:31:30 Anthony Fauci: You don't know everything about this virus. And we really better be very careful, particularly when it comes to children. Because the more and more we learn, we're seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn't see from the studies in China or in Europe. For example, right now, children presenting with COVID-19, who actually have a very strange inflammatory syndrome, very similar to Kawasaki syndrome. I think we've got to be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects. So again, you're right in the numbers that children in general do much, much better than adults and the elderly, and particularly those with underlying conditions. But I am very careful, and hopefully humble in knowing that I don't know everything about this disease, and that's why I'm very reserved in making broad predictions. 2:30:15 Anthony Fauci: We do the testing on these vaccines, we are going to make production risk, which means we will start putting hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government money into the development and production of vaccine doses before we even know it works. So that when we do and I hope we will and have cautious optimism that we will ultimately get an effective and safe vaccine that we will have doses available to everyone who needs it in the United States, and even contribute to the needs globally because we are partnering with a number of other countries. 2:49:00 Sen. Mitt Romney (UT): Given our history with vaccine creation for other coronaviruses, how likely is it? I mean, is it extremely likely we're going to get a vaccine within a year or two? Is it just more likely than not? Or is it kind of a long shot? Anthony Fauci: It's definitely not a long shot, Senator Romney, the I would think that it is more likely than not that we will, because this is a virus that induces an immune response and people recover. The overwhelming majority of people recover from this virus, although there is good morbidity and mortality at a level in certain populations. The very fact that the body is capable of spontaneously clearing the virus tells me that at least from a conceptual standpoint, we can stimulate the body with a vaccine that would induce a similar response. So although there's no guarantee, I think it's clearly much more likely than not that somewhere within that timeframe, we will get a vaccine for this virus. 3:06:50 Sen. Jacky Rosen (NV): Can you talk about PPE for the general public? Anthony Fauci: Well, you know, the best PPE for the general public, if possible right now is to maintain the physical and social distancing. But as we've said, and I think all of us would agree, there are certain circumstances in which it is beyond your control, when you need to do necessary things. Like go to the drugstore and get the occasion, go to the grocery store and get your food that in fact, you need some supplementation to just physical distancing. That's the reason why some time ago, recommendation was made, I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC, who first said that about getting some sort of a covering we don't want to call it a mask because back then we were concerned, we would be taking masks away from the health care providers with some sort of mask like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection. And in fact, the more as you go outside right here and where I'm sitting in Washington DC, you can see many people out there with masks on, which gives me some degree of comfort that people are taking this very seriously. 3:20:00 Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): You didn't say you shouldn't go back to school because we won't have a vaccine? Anthony Fauci: No, absolutely not. Mr. Chairman, what I was referring to, is that going back to school would be more in the realm of knowing the landscape of infection with regard to testing. And as Admiral Giroir said, it would depend on the dynamics of the outbreak in the region where the school is, but I did not mean to imply at all any relationship between the availability of a vaccine and treatment and our ability to go back to school. Addressing the Senate: , Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, May 12, 2020 Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, May 7, 2020 Witnesses: Francis Collins, MD, PhD - Director of the National Institutes of Health Gary Disbrow, PhD.- Acting Director, Biomedical Advanced Research And Development Authority, Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Preparedness And Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 1:36:20 Gary Disbrow: We do know that Coronavirus, the COVID-19, is one the immune system recognizes and eradicate the virus, we do know that people recover from it. And after a while you can't recover the virus anymore. That's good. That tells you the immune system knows what to do with this. It's not like HIV. At the same time, we do know that this virus can mutate. We've already been able to observe that it's an RNA virus. Fortunately, it doesn't mutate the way influenza does. So we don't think it will have this sort of very rapid seasonal change that we have to deal with with influenza, which means last year's vaccine is maybe not the one you want this year. We really don't know the answer, though to a lot of your questions, and they're fundamentally important. Can you get reinfected with this? There have been a few cases of that they're not incredibly convincing. If you do develop immunity, how long does it last? We do not have a good reason... Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA): Can I ask you though there is evidence both from rhesus monkeys that this antibody is protective it and there's also from SARS1 if you will, somebody writes about immunity being for 18 years. So it does seem If the scientific evidence is pointing in that direction, Gary Disbrow: It's pointing in that direction. You're absolutely right. And we're counting on that to be the answer here. But until we know, we will need to know. Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA): Now, let me ask you though what is defined as knowing because knowing may not be for one or two years, and yet we have to make policy decisions, hopefully before then, Gary Disbrow: Indeed, and I think at the present time to be able to evaluate the meaning of a positive antibody test, one should be quite cautious, I think it's going to help a lot to see if there anybody who has such an antibody test, it turns out to get infected again, in the next six months or so because a virus is going to be around, we'll start to get an early warning sign there. But we won't know whether it's three years or five years or 10 years. Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA): So you suggested to me that not only should we test but we should be tracking who is positive so that we can follow them longitudinally to see whether or not they develop once more. Gary Disbrow: With their appropriate consent of course, and this is where the All of Us program that you and I have talked about which is enrolled now 300,000 Americans who are pre consented for exactly this kind of follow up is going to be very useful to track and see what happens. 2:16:00 Sen. Mitt Romney (UT): I was in a hearing yesterday with the Homeland Security Committee. And the suggestion was between 50 and 90% of the people that get COVID-19 have no symptoms. If that's the case, should we let this run its course to the population and not try and test every person. I'm saying that a bit as a straw man, but I'm interested in your perspective. Gary Disbrow: I appreciate you're putting it forward as a straw man, because while it is true, that lots of people seem to get this virus without any symptoms at all. And the estimates are that maybe 60% of new cases are transmitted by such people. It's still the case that 74,000 people have died from this disease. And so the people who are out there infected who may not themselves be suffering or passing this on becoming a vector to others who are vulnerable with chronic illnesses or in the older age group. And sometimes young people too. Let's not say that they're immune. There are certainly plenty of sad circumstances of young people who really you would not have thought would be hard hit by this, who have gotten very little or even died. So I think it is extremely unusual to have a virus like this that is so capable of infecting people without symptoms, but having them then spread it on, we just haven't encountered something like that before. But it doesn't mean that it's not a terribly dangerous virus for those people who aren't so lucky and who get very sick and end up in the ICU and perhaps lose their lives. The only way we're really going to put a stop to that is to know who the people are who are infected, even if they have no symptoms, get them quarantine, follow their contacts. It's just good solid shoe leather public health, and we've learned it over the decades and it applies here too. 2:31:45 Gary Disbrow: In terms of the need to track people to see what happens, and particularly as was brought up earlier, is the presence of antibody actually something you can say makes you immune. I think maybe our best chance at this is this program that Congress has funded, and it's part of 21st Century Cures Act. So I'll have to specifically give a shout out to this committee about that to the chairman. And that is this program called All of Us, which is tracking when we get there a million people over time, we're already up to over 300,000 that have signed up. And those individuals answer lots of questions. Their electronic health records are available for researchers to look at after they've been anonymized. They get blood samples over the course of time, so you can track and see, oh, it didn't have the antibody, then oh, now it does have the antibody, what happened there? We should be able to utilize that for this and many other purposes to try to get some of those answers. And I totally agree. We need those. Hearing: , United States House Committee on Appropriations, May 6, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Tom Frieden - President and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, and former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Caitlin Rivers - Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Transcript: 47:00 Dr. Caitlin Rivers: You heard from Dr. Frieden that contact tracing is really a key component, a key approach that will allow us to reopen safely. One thing that I don't hear a lot about about contact tracing, though that I want to bring to your attention is that it's also a key source of data that we badly need. We currently have very little understanding about where people are getting infected, our most new cases in long term care facilities or correctional facilities, which we know are high risk settings. But we don't have a good sense of whether 99% of our cases originate in those special settings or whether it's a small fraction. We don't know whether people who are essential workers still performing duties in the community are getting infected, or we don't know whether most infections are happening at home. Getting a better understanding of what that looks like will help us to guide better interventions. If it is special settings. We know we need to be doing more to protect people there. But we might also assess the risk to the general community to be lower. On the other hand, if most people are getting infected at home, that points for a need for some sort of Central Isolation capacity, by which I mean if people feel that they would be safer recovering in a hotel, away from their families, for example, that should be an option that should be made available to them. But we would want to know what fraction of cases are originating in the household to understand whether that is an important investment. This information on where transmission is occurring is of critical importance, but it's not currently being prioritized and it is contact tracing that allows us to collect this data. So in addition to being a key tool for containment, it's also a key tool for helping us to guide our response and the decisions that we need for that. 53:15 Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT): Is there a single state that has met the necessary parameters to ease restrictions? Dr. Caitlin Rivers: We suggest in our AI report that she mentioned at the beginning of the session that there are four criteria that states should meet in order to safely reopen and not all states have adopted these criteria, but I'll review them just as a starting point. The first is to see the number of nuclear cases declined for at least two weeks, and some states have met that criteria. But there are three other criteria and we suggest they should all be met. The other is enough public health capacity to conduct contact tracing on all new cases, enough diagnostic testing to test everybody with COVID like symptoms, not just those people with severe illness, and enough healthcare system capacity to treat everyone safely. To my knowledge, there are no states that meet all four of those criteria. 1:47:00 Dr. Caitlin Rivers: Thankfully, we are able to observe that children are lower risk of severe illness. That's something we've seen in other countries. It's something we're seeing in the United States. And so that's encouraging. What we don't know is what role children play in transmission. We know from pandemic influenza or rather influenza generally that children are really central to transmission in the community, not just in schools, but the community broadly. We haven't been able to pin down the science yet of what exactly the role is of children in transmission and so that's where you see a lot of the uncertainty. These two factors weigh against each other and make it very difficult to come to a decision. So I suggest that as other countries move toward reopening, which is happening, some countries are going back to school in the coming weeks. They will be collecting data and doing the analysis that will let us understand what the role of children is and I think that will be helpful for informing our decision. 2:06:50 Dr. Caitlin Rivers: I agree that outdoor areas are low risk for transmission and that they're play a really important role in mental health and overall well being. And so I do support the reopening of those outdoor areas. Interview: , Fox News, April 28, 2020 News Alert: , CNN, April 4, 2020 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD214: Facial Recognition

17 maj 2020 | 56 min

Over the last year, various Congressional committees have been investigating the expanding use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement and the private sector. In this episode, hear the highlights of these investigations which will enlighten you about the extent that this technology is being used to put your face in criminal investigation line-ups, determine your employability, and more. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Rapid DNA Act Articles/Documents Article: By Bryan Walsh, Axios, May 10, 2020 Letter: By Raja Krishnamoorthi, House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 19, 2020 Article: By Max Read, The New York Intellgencer, February 13, 2020 Article: By Rani Molla, Vox, January 28, 2020 Article: By Alfred Ng, Cnet, December 3, 2019 Article: By Drew Harwell, The Washington Post, November 19, 2019 Article: By Kade Crockford, The Guardian, October 31, 2019 Article: By Caroline Haskins, Vice, August 8, 2019 Article: By Caroline Haskins, Vice, August 8, 2019 Article: By Mark Harris, The Guardian, August 2, 2019 Article: By Dell Cameron, Gizmodo, July 30, 2019 Article: By Phil LeBeau, CNBC, July 29, 2019 Article: By Chris Burt, Biometric Update, July 26, 2019 Article: By Amy Harmon, The New York Times, July 8, 2019 Article: By Catie Edmondson, The New York Times, July 7, 2019 Article: By Chris Burt, Biometric Update, June 3, 2019 Article: By J.J. McCorvey, Fast Company, October 26, 2018 Article: By Elizabeth Dwoskin, The Washington Post, May 22, 2018 Article: By Russell Brandom, The Verge, May 22, 2018 Article: By Matt Cagle & Nicole Ozer, ACLU, May 22, 2018 Article: By Shirin Ghaffary, Vox, May 14, 2019 Article: , Security Sales & Integration, May 3, 2019 Article: By Chris Burt, Biometric Update, April 18, 2019 Article: By Aaron Gregg, The Washington Post, April 2, 2019 Article: By Natasha Singer, The New York Times, January 24, 2019 Article: By Sam Biddle, The Intercept, January 10, 2019 Article: By Katherine LaGrave, Conde Nast Traveler, September 11, 2018 Article: By John Paul Brammer, them., August 10, 2018 Article: By Jaden Urbi, CNBC, August 8, 2018 Article: By Jacob Snow, ACLU, July 28, 2018 Article: By Taylor Hatmaker, Tech Crunch, June 29, 2018 Article: By Stephen Babcock, Technical.ly, October 12, 2016 Article: By Paul Sawers, VB, September 23, 2016 Article: By Frank Konkel, The Atlantic, July 17, 2014 Article: , Electronic Privacy Information Center Additional Resources YouTube Video: , Jade Podcast: , Biometric Update Podcast: , Federal News Network, May 31, 2019 Letter: , May 22, 2018 Location Map: , CLEAR Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Homeland Security, February 6, 2020 Witnesses: John Wagner - Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security Peter Mina - Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland Security Charles Romine - Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce Transcript: 1:37:25 Rep. Lauren Underwood (IL): Some passengers report being unaware or confused about how to opt out of their biometric screening. As CBP expands the biometric screening program, does it intend to reevaluate the best method of communicating the important opt out information to passengers? John Wagner: Yeah, so right now we've got signage at the airports. But you know, a lot of people don't read signs at the airport. We've got gate announcements that the airlines try to make before boarding. But again, there's always competing announcements going on. And sometimes it's tough to understand what's being said. So we're actually looking with the airlines is - could we print things on the boarding pass could we give notifications when they're, say booking their ticket or when they're getting their their checking information for boarding other electronic messages we could provide, so we're looking at additional ways to do that. We also started taking out some some privacy advertisements, advising people of the requirements and what their options are as well, too. Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2020 Witness: Christopher Wray - FBI Director Transcript: 2:40:00 Christopher Wray: We at the FBI don't use facial recognition for anything other than lead value. There is no one under FBI policy who is arrested, much less convicted based on facial recognition technology. We use it to advance an investigation to then be used with other information to figure out if we’re going in the right place. So let me start with that. Second thing. We scrupulously train all the examiners under various constitutional protections. And then as to the DMV searches that you're talking about, again we the FBI don't do those searches. The only way those searches can happen is under strict MOUs that have all kinds of constitutional backing. Even when we get the results, it then has to be reviewed carefully by a trained examiner. 2:41:00 Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): To be clear under, current FBI policy, can face recognition technology be used without a warrant or probable cause in any circumstance? Christopher Wray: Yes. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): OK, so that is a concern for me. It continues to be a concern for me. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, January 15, 2020 Witnesses: Brenda Leong - Senior Counsel and Director of AI and Ethics at the Future of Privacy Forum Charles Romine - Director of Information Technology Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology Meredith Whittaker - Co-Founder and Co-Director of the AI Now Institute Daniel Castro - VP and Director of the Center for Data Innovation at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Jake Parkers - Senior Director of Government Relations at the Security Industry Association (SIA) Transcript: 40:55 Charles Romine: I'll first address one-to-one verification applications. Their false positive differentials are much larger than those related to false negative and exist across many of the algorithms tested. False positives might present a security concern to the system owner as they may allow access to imposters. Other findings are that false positives are higher in women than in men and are higher in the elderly and the young compared to middle aged adults. Regarding race, we measured higher false positive rates in Asian and African American faces relative to those of Caucasians. There are also higher false positive rates in Native American, American Indian, Alaskan Indian and Pacific Islanders. These effects apply to most algorithms, including those developed in Europe and the United States. However, a notable exception was for some algorithms developed in Asian countries. There was no such dramatic difference in false positives in one to one matching between Asian and Caucasian faces for algorithms developed in Asia. This study did not explore the relationship between cause and effect, one possible connection and an area for research is the relationship between an algorithms performance and the data used to train the algorithm itself. 1:13:00 Meredith Whittaker: The average consumer does not and indeed many researchers, many lawmakers don't because this technology, as I wrote about my my written testimony, is hidden behind trade secrecy. This is a corporate technology that is not open for scrutiny and auditing by external experts. I think it's notable that while NIST reviewed 189 algorithms for their latest report, Amazon refused to submit their recognition algorithm to NIST. Now, they claimed they couldn't modify it to meet NIST standards, but they are a multi billion dollar company and have managed some other pretty incredible feats. So whatever the reason is, what we see here is that it's at the facial recognition companies discretion, what they do or don't release. 1:51:45 Meredith Whittaker: Because the Baltimore PD was using private sector technologies, they were scanning Instagram photos through a service called Geopedia that gave them feeds from Freddie Gray protests. They then were matching those photos against their Faces facial recognition algorithm which is a privately developed facial recognition algorithm to identify people with warrants, whom they could then potentially harass. 2:49:45 Rep. Deb Haaland (NM): I recently read that some employers have begun using facial recognition technology to help decide who to hire. At certain companies such as Hilton and Unilever, job applicants can complete video interviews using their computer or cell phone cameras which collect data on characteristics like an applicant's facial movements, vocal tone and word choice. One company offering this technology, HireVue, collects up to 500,000 data points in a 30 minute interview. The algorithm then ranks the applicant against other applicants based on the so called employability score. Job applicants who look and sound like the most like the current high performers at the company received the highest scores. Miss Whittaker, I have two questions for you. One, isn't it true that the use of facial recognition and characterization technology and job application processes may contribute to biases in hiring practices. And if yes, can you please elaborate? Meredith Whittaker: It is absolutely true. And if the scenario that you described so well is a scenario in which you create a bias feedback loop, in which the people who are already rewarded and promoted and hired to a firm become the models for what a good employee looks like. So if you look at the executive suite at Goldman Sachs, which also uses HireVue, for this type of hiring, you see a lot of men, a lot of white men, and if that becomes the model for what a successful worker looks like, and then that is that is used to judge whether my face looks successful enough to get a job interview at Goldman Sachs, we're going to see a kind of confirmation bias in which people are excluded from opportunity because they happen not to look like the people who had already been hired. 2:54:45 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): First part of what we hope will be legislation that we can have broad support on, that the chairman and both Republicans and Democrats can support, is tell us what's going on now. And then second, while we're trying to figure that out, while the study and we're getting an accountability and what's all happening, let's not expand it. Let's just start there, tell us what you're doing, and don't do anything while we're trying to figure out what you're doing. And then once we get that information, then we can move from there. That is what I hope we can start with Madam Chair and frankly, what we've been working with now for a year, the staffs for both majority and the minority. Hearing: , House Committee on Homeland Security, July 10, 2019 Witnesses: John Wagner, Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joseph R. DiPietro, Chief Technology Officer, U.S. Secret Service; Austin Gould, Assistant Administrator, Requirements and Capabilities Analysis, Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security Transcript: 4:55 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Last July, the American Civil Liberties Union connected..conducted a test using Amazon's facial recognition to call recognition. ACLU built a database of 25,000 publicly available arrest photos. Using recognition, ACLU searched the database using pictures of every current member of Congress. That software incorrectly matched 20 members, 28 members with individuals who had criminal records. 10:30 Rep. Mike Rogers (AL): I do not believe that anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a government ID photo. Period. 15:00 John Wagner: CBP developed a service that simply automates the manual facial recognition process that goes on today when a traveler presents a passport to establish their identity. To be clear, CBP is only comparing the picture taken against photos previously provided by travelers to the U.S. Government for the purposes of international travel. This is not a surveillance program. 16:10 John Wagner: Now recognizing there's been concerns raised over the inclusion of US citizens, CBP has existing authorities and responsibilities to determine the citizenship and identity of all people traveling internationally. This is a U.S. government responsibility, not the private sector. It's also unlawful for a U.S. Citizen to travel internationally without a U.S. Passport. Now, generally determination of U.S. Citizenship is done by comparing the traveler against their passport. Again, we're simply automating and using a computer algorithm to enhance this manual facial recognition existing process. 16:50 John Wagner: As far as our partnerships with the industry stakeholders, CBP'S developed a standard set of business requirements that our partners have all agreed too, If their camera is sending a photo to CBP. The business requirements clearly stipulate they cannot keep the photos. Our partners have voluntarily agreed to the CBP business requirements. 25:40 Joseph R. DiPietro: With respect to DNA, DNA evidence is one of the most effective identification tools available to law enforcement today. Advances related to DNA technology have been rapid and the secret service remains dedicated to utilizing new applications to enhance our integrated mission. 26:55 Joseph R. DiPietro: The secret service is currently working on a facial recognition pilot. The participants in the pilot are secret service employees who volunteer to take part in this effort. Designated White House cameras that are part of the video management system captured volunteers as they move through various locations around the White House complex. Software running on a server,dedicated to the pilot, and on a closed network not connected to the Internet, seeks to match the images of the volunteers to the images in the video streams. 37:40 John Wagner: So when the picture is taken and provided and comes into CBP and we match it against one of our pre-staged gallery photos that's comprised of passports and visas and previous arrivals, if it's a foreign national subject to the biometric entry exit mandate, that photograph will be sent over to DHS to hold them-to be stored in IDENT, which is the departments repository for that information. If it's a U.S. citizen and that document-that photo matches a U.S. Passport or a permanent resident or somebody outside of the scope of entry exit, that photograph would be held for 12 hours and then deleted or purged from our systems. The only reason we hold it for that short period of time, is just in case the system crashes and we have to restore everything. 38:45 John Wagner: What we were doing with that subcontractors, we would testing their camera on the U.S. Mexico land border in a standalone pilot system. So it wasn't integrated into the main CBP network and we were testing the taking of the photographs and the license plates and the ability to take a picture of a person in a vehicle and whether that would be matchable. In this case, the, apparently the con-...as far as I understand, the contractor physically removed those photographs from the camera itself and put it onto their own network, which was then breached. The CBP network was not hacked. The contractor, and what we see is, what I believe is, they remove that in violation of the contract and that's why our relationship has been severed with them and we're conducting an investigation. Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): So - so you see my concern about how we control the data we collect? John Wagner: Absolutely. 1:08:00 Austin Gould: So right now I can comment on a really what we're doing in Atlanta with Delta Airlines. In Atlanta, the Delta airlines kiosks use biometric identification to-, when the passenger checks in to make sure, should, they choose to do, too make sure that that person is actually the passenger who's ticketed on that particular flight. Uh, TSA has oversight of the bagdrop to ensure that passengers are positively matched to bags in the international, you know, for international travel. And so Delta Airlines has a security program amendment that we've granted them to use biometric technology to do that matching at the bagdrop. We use it at our checkpoint in uh, in Atlanta, and then it's a, of course subject, or it's used at the exit point at the gate. 1:08:55 Austin Gould: Right now, the Security Program amendment that we've granted Delta for the limited use, only in Atlanta, is the only formal agreement that we've entered into with the, uh, with the airlines. 1:20:45 Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): I'm concerned about the lack of accuracy. I'm very concerned about.... John Wagner: A person doesn't match the photo in this case, they present their passport as they're doing today. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): Excuse me? John Wagner: If a person doesn't match a photograph, they simply present their passport... Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): When you're trying to match them and they don't match what happens to that individual? John Wagner: They present their boarding pass and their passport... Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): Uh huh. John Wagner: ...and it's manually reviewed at that point in time. Just as it happens today. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): is that, and those people aren't detained in any way? They're not asked to step aside, they're not asked to, the process does not delay that person? John Wagner: No, they just show their passport. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY): Okay. I hope that's the case. 1:33:00 Joseph R. DiPietro: Ma'am, the cameras that we're using as part of this pilot are part of the White House video management system. That's the CCTV system that records videos from all the cameras around the complex. We retain that data for 30 days as part of the CCTV process. So if we're, as we're going through and we're identifying those, those volunteers that are in there, that record is saved and we save that and we're going to evaluate that until the end of the process. 1:36:30 Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ): Mr. Gould, are you planning on using this or have you thought of using biometric technology or do you for the employees-, the airport employees? Austin Gould: Yes ma'am. We are considering using biometric identification processes for employees as well. 1:42:00 John Wagner: This is not us taking an image of a person and randomly running it against a gallery set of indistinguishable, say, quality photographs and lowering down the accuracy rate as to what constitutes a match, to make it match someone that it's not. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 25, 2019 Witnesses: David P. Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security Charles M. Johnson, Jr., Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office Transcript: 50:00 David Pekoske: Right now, based on a series of rules, a passenger who was not a precheck register or a global entry registrant could get precheck on their boarding pass. We're phasing that out over the course of the next several months. Um, so the precheck experience should get quite a bit better. 1:36:35 Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): So are you familiar with Clear? David Pekoske: I am. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): So I want you to know, uh, for, for a while I've been going and I kind of watch the process of clear and realized and went to their website and it says instead of using identification documents, clear uses biometrics, eye scans and fingerprints to confirm identity cleared codes, the biographic information and stores the data to be retrieved supposedly for future flight checks. Once the, it's in person registration as you know administrator, and it's a, that gets completed and then ClearPass can be used. The costs for our residents is about $100 annually and I think they pay a little bit more, I believe, when they first register. I have concerns about this. This is a private company, correct? David Pekoske: It is. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): And they're stepping in to doing their version of a pre TSA check, correct? David Pekoske: Uh no, they are doing identity verification, but it is not pre-check. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): So when they put the information in there, from what I understand from their website, of course they're going to say, you know, Clear's privacy policy seems to indicate that they can't sell the material or they're not going to share the material and so forth. But what's very interesting, administrator, and again this is also for Director Johnson, because I don't know, does JAO look at the Clears airport security process or not? This is why it's concerning. So the company shut down unexpectedly earlier this year for a day because they so called "ran out of money" and no one seems to know the root cause or how safe the data was during that time. And then it goes on to say nothing in the privacy policy explicitly prohibits a data collection company from purchasing Clear just for its data on what is likely or largely, you know, well healed clientele. This is very concerning because even though obviously in there, maybe in their contract, it says that they can't sell or share the data. Where does it say that our information is still protected? Can they sell it to another company? Can they transfer that contract to yet another company? And again, this is for profit companies, private outside companies that are coming in gathering the data and by them being there at the airport next to the pre TSA line and cutting the...we've kind of given some sort of blessing and credibility to this company to do that practice. And so what division approves this outside contract and what kind of oversight are we having, in regards to this process? David Pekoske: Yes, ma'am. Clear is what's called a registered traveler company.. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): Yeah, I know... David Pekoske: ..and the Registered Traveler program was established by Congress. So that program was established by Congress as being implemented as congress had intended. The Clear organization is not under contract with TSA. It is under contract with individual airports. So there is no contractual relationship between TSA and Clear. Our relationship to Clear is via the airports through the Airport Security Program, which we put in place at each airport around the country. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI): So is there an [inaudible] Director Johnson, or maybe the administrator can answer? Do you see any security risks of the data being collected and being cleared through, you know, people are being, the cleared process that they have been using to get expedited through the line? Charles Johnson, Jr.: While we have looked at the Pre-check program in the past, we haven't really looked at the Clear program. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 4, 2019 Witnesses: Kimberly Del Greco - Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation Gretta Goodwin - Director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office Charles H. Romine - Director, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology Austin Gould - Assistant Administrator, Requirements and Capabilities Analysis, Transportation Security Administration Transcript: 2:30 Kimberly Del Greco: The FBI's policy and procedures emphasize that photo candidates returned are not to be considered positive identification, that the searches are photos and will only result in a ranked listing of candidates. 3:15 Kimberly Del Greco: Photos in the NGI, IPS repository are solely criminal mugshots acquired by law enforcement partners with criminal fingerprints associated with an arrest. 3:25 Kimberly Del Greco: The FBI face services unit provides investigative lead support to FBI offices, operational divisions, and legal attache's by using trained face examiners to compare face images of persons associated with open assessments or active investigations against facial images available and state and federal facial recognition systems through establish agreements with state and federal authorities. 3:50Kimberly Del Greco: The face services unit only searches probe photos that have been collected pursuant to the attorney general guidelines as part of an authorized FBI investigation and they are not retained. 4:05 Kimberly Del Greco: This service does not provide positive identification, but rather an investigative lead. 4:45 Kimberly Del Greco: The FBI collaborated with NIS to perform the facial recognition vendor test and determined a most viable option to upgrade its current NGI IPS algorithm. The algorithm chosen boasted an accuracy rate of 99.12% leveraging the nest results. The FBI is implementing the upgraded facial recognition algorithm. 7:30 Gretta Goodwin: We also reported on accuracy concerns about FBI's face recognition capabilities. Specifically, we found that the FBI conducted limited assessments of the accuracy of the face recognition searches before they accept it and deployed the technology. For example, the face recognition system generates a list of the requested number of photos. The FBI only assessed accuracy when users requested a list of 50 possible matches. It did not test smaller list sizes, which might have yielded different results. Additionally, these tests did not specify how often incorrect matches were returned. Knowing all of this, the FBI still deployed the technology. 13:30 Charles Romine: NIST's face recognition vendor testing program was established in 2000 to provide independent evaluations of both prototype and commercially available facial recognition algorithms. Significant progress has been made in algorithm improvements since the program was created. 14:30 Charles Romine Optimal face identification was achieved only when humans and machines collaborated. 16:40 Austin Gould The roadmap has four major goals, partnered with customs and border protection on biometrics for international travelers, operationalize biometrics for TSA precheck passengers, potentially expand biometrics for additional domestic travelers and develop the infrastructure to support these biometric efforts. 17:00 Austin Gould Consistent with the biometrics roadmap, TSA has conducted pilots that use facial biometrics to verify identity at certain airports. 17:25 Austin Gould And passengers always have the opportunity to not participate. In these cases, standard manual identification process is used. 17:30 Austin Gould I have observed the pilot currently underway in Terminal F in Atlanta for international passengers. Of Note, virtually every passenger chose to use the biometric identification process. The facial capture camera used for this pilot was in active mode, meaning that it only captured a facial image after the passenger was in position and the officer activated it. The match rate is extremely high and passengers moved rapidly through the checkpoint. 20:45 Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Ms. DelGreco, can you explain how the FBI decides to search a state database versus when it searches its own system and how this policy is determined? Kimberly Del Greco I'd be happy to explain that. The, at the FBI, we have a service called Face Services unit. They process background checks and, uh, process, facial recognition searches of the state DMV photos. They do this in accordance with the attorney general guidelines. An FBI field office has to have an open assessment or an active investigation. They submit the probe photo to the FBI Face Services unit. We launched the search to the state. The state runs the search for the FBI and, and provides a candidate list back. 21:35 Kimberly Del Greco With regard to the NGI IPS, the Interstate Photo system, the Face Services unit will utilize that repository as well as the DMV photos. However, state and local and federal law enforcement agencies only have access to the NGI Interstate Photo system. These are the FBI mugshots that are associated with an 10 print criminal card associated with a criminal arrest record. 22:05 Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Well, do individual who consent to having their faces in the noncriminal databases also consent to having their faces searched by the FBI for criminal investigations? For example, when applying for a drivers license, does someone consent at the DMV to being in a database searchable by the FBI? Kimberly Del Greco The FBI worked diligently with the state representatives in each of the states that we have MOUs. We did so under the states’ authority to allow photos to be used for criminal investigations. We also abided by the Federal Drivers License Privacy Protection Act and we consider that a very important process for us to access those photos to assist the state and local law enforcement and our Federal agencies. Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Well, you just said state authority allowed you to do this. One question that our ranking member has asked over and over again is do you know whether in any of these states do any elected officials have anything to do with these decisions? In other words, where is that authority coming from and we’re trying to figure out if something affecting so many citizens whether elected officials have anything to do with it. Do you know? Kimberly Del Greco I do. Only in one state - the state of Illinois - did an elected official sign the MOU. In the other states, they were done so with the state representatives. This is state law that’s established at the state level prior to facial recognition and our program getting started. We’re just leveraging that state law. That state law is already in place. We did work with the office of general council at the FBI and the attorney level at the state level. Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Well, if it was prior to facial recognition coming into existence, I’m just wondering do you think that whatever laws you’re referring to anticipated something like facial recognition? Kimberly Del Greco It’s my understanding that the states established those laws because of fraud and abuse of drivers licenses and we are just reviewing each of the state laws and working with the representatives in those states to ensure that we can leverage that for criminal investigation. Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) And so when you say leverage, I guess you’re saying that there were laws that were out there and these laws did not anticipate something like facial recognition and now the FBI has decided that it would basically take advantage of those laws, is that right? 26:00 Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Ms. Del Greco, how many states have provided this level of direct access to the FBI? Kimberly Del Greco We do not have direct access. We submit a probe to the state. There’s 21 states… Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) 21 states, ok. 28:10 Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) And can the FBI perform a face recognition service for any American with a passport? Kimberly Del Greco For an open assessment or an active investigation. Only by the FBI, sir. 29:25 Kimberly Del Greco Some of those successes are assisting with the capture of the terrorist in Boston. 31:15 Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ) So what sort of accuracy rates are you finding in the different algorithms ability to match an image against a larger gallery of images? Charles Romine The accuracy rates that we're seeing, we have many different participants who have submitted algorithms. Approximately 70 participants in our, in our testing, the best algorithms are performing at a rate of approximately 99.7 in terms of accuracy. There's still a wide variety or wide variance across the number of algorithms. So this is certainly not commoditized yet. Some of the participants faired significantly poorer than that. 32:00 Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ)So are there algorithms that you tested that you would recommend for law enforcement? Charles Romine We don't make recommendations about specific algorithms. We provide the data necessary for making informed decisions about how an algorithm will perform in a field. 32:20 Charles Romine For law enforcement, for example, accuracy rates are one important aspect that needs to be considered, but there are other aspects that have to be taken into consideration for procurement or acquisition of such. 34:15 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Mr. Gould, according to the biometrics roadmap released by TSA in September of 2018, TSA seeks to expand the use of facial recognition technology to "the general flying public" in specific locations. But the "general flying public "and TSA envisions the use of technology upon domestic flights, as well as international, which would capture the faces of mostly American citizens, and I'm just curious, going back to the chairman's original question, what's the legal basis? I'm not talking about a situation with the FBI where you might have, you hopefully would have probable cause. Where does the TSA find its justification? Its legal justification for capturing the facial, uh, identity of, of the flying public. Austin Gould: Yes sir. In accordance with the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001, TSA is charged with positively identifying passengers who are boarding aircraft. That probably... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Right. Let me just stop you right there. So, we all fly at least a couple of times a day.... Austin Gould: Yes sir. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : ..a week. So we have, now you have to have a certified license. You can't go with the old version that your State had. Now we have much more accurate licenses. We surrender that oftentimes in the airport during the boarding process, you've got to show it a couple of times you've got a ticketing issue there. So you're doing that right now. Austin Gould: Yes Sir. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : You have been doing that for a long, long time. Austin Gould : Manually, Yes Sir. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Right. Right. Right. So now you're saying that you're going to do these pilot programs and you're gonna hurt people. Now you're saying voluntarily, but I could imagine like you've done with a pre-check, you can either agree to surrender your right to anonymity and wait in the long line or you can give up your fourth amendment rights and go in the quick line. Is is that the dynamic that's going on here? Austin Gould: Sir, with respect to expanding to the general traveling public, we anticipate using, and we've not tested this yet, a one to one matching capability at the checkpoint. You produce your credential, you stick it in a machine, and the machine identifies whether or not your image, which is captured by the camera, matches the image that's embedded in the credential and it returns a match result. That will then allow you to proceed through the checkpoint. Should you decide not to participate in that program, we will always have the option to do that process manually. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Right, but to match, you've got to have that data in the.. you've got to have that data onboarding and the technology to begin with to match something with, right? Austin Gould : Sir, that data is embedded in your credential. So the photograph is on your driver's license, for example. There's a digital recording of that image in the credential and when your pictures captured by the camera, it is matched to the photograph on the credential. It does not depart the checkpoint for any database search or anything like that. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : Okay. Austin Gould : That's the one to one identification that we intend to use for the broader traveling public. 37:34 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : You don't anticipate taking, using a database or gathering, collecting a database of information with NTSA, with which to identify passengers? Austin Gould : Sir, for international travelers who have a passport photo on record and for TSA precheck passengers who also provide a passport photo, we will match them to a gallery. But for the general traveling public that does not participate in those programs and merely has a credential, that matching.... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) : What's the size of the gallery,? What do you anticipate? Is that, so if anybody engages in international travel, Is that, are they going to be in that or are they foreign nationals who traveled to the U.S.? Austin Gould : Sir, the gallery that we use right now with TVS includes anyone who is traveling internationally and who has a photo on record. 49:40 Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO) : So how many times has the FBI provided notice to criminal defendants that face recognition was used in their case? Kimberly Del Greco : As part of a criminal investigation, I don't believe that's part of the process. 52:00 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) : Dr. Goodwin, did the FBI publish privacy impact assessment in a timely fashion as it was supposed to when it implemented FRT in 2011? Gretta Goodwin : No. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) : Did the FBI follow proper notice? File proper notice, specifically the system of record notice in a timely fashion when it implemented facial recognition technology? Gretta Goodwin : No. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) : Did the FBI conduct proper testing of the next generation interstate photo system when it implemented FRT? Gretta Goodwin : Proper in terms of its accuracy for its use? Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) : Yes Gretta Goodwin : No. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) : Did the FBI test the accuracy of the states systems that it interfaced with? Gretta Goodwin : No. 58:00 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY) : So Mrs. Del Greco, how many searches has the FBI run in the Next Generation ID Interstate Photo system to date? How many searches? Do you have that information? Kimberly Del Greco : I have, I have from fiscal year 2017 to April of 2019. There were 152,500 searches. 1:03:30 Rep. Thomas Massie (KY) : Did you test certain conditions like siblings, the accuracy for siblings? Charles Romine : We do have perhaps the most relevant data that I can give you is, we do know that there is an impact on twins, in the database or in the testing, whether they are identical twins or even fraternal twins. 1:14:50 Austin Gould : Sir, the system that TSA is prototyping in conjunction with CBP uses NEC camera and a matching algorithm that was also developed by NEC. 1:16:50 Rep. Justin Amash (MI) : Do you have plans to implement face recognition technology at additional points in airports beyond besides gates or security checkpoints? Austin Gould : We are prototyping facial recognition technology at bagdrops, so when you drop a bag off to be placed on an aircraft, we can use facial technology, we're exploring the use of facial technology there and then for TSA purposes, only other locations are the checkpoint. 1:17:20 Rep. Mark Meadows (NC) : So Mr. Gould, let me, let me come back. If you're doing at bagdrops, that's not a one on one comparison. I mean if you, what are you comparing it to? If you're, if you're looking at change, checking facial recognition at bagdrops... Austin Gould : Uh Huh? Rep. Mark Meadows (NC) : ..there wouldn't be necessarily the identification that you were talking about earlier. What pilot program are you working with that? Austin Gould : The pilot program in place right now is with Delta Airlines and CBP and TSA and Atlanta's Terminal F and it's a matching of the passengers bag against their identification or their photograph and the TVS, CBP, TVS system. Rep. Mark Meadows (NC) : Well, that contradicts your earlier testimony, Mr. Gould. Because what you said that you were doing is just checking the biometrics within the identification against a facial recognition, but it sounds like you're doing a lot more than that. 1:18:50 Austin Gould: Sir, with respect to the pilot in Atlanta, it's international travelers, and the purpose of that pilot is to positively match using biometrics. The passenger to that bag at the bag drop. The only, the traveler's camp, uh, photograph is captured, images captured. It is transmitted to the CBP TVS system for matching and it returns a match result. That's it. No privacy information or any other data associated with it. 1:41:30 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): The numbers. Dr. Goodwin, how many..what number of photos does the FBI have access to in just their database? Gretta Goodwin: In just their database, it's a little over 20 plus, 36 million. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): 36 million. And then in the databases that they can then send information to and that are screened and used and there's interface, interaction with, at the state level. What is the total number of photos in those databases? Gretta Goodwin: So access to photos across all the repositories? About 640 million. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): 640 million photos? Only 330 million people in the country. 1:45:35 Charles Romine: We don't test for specific companies on their behalf. We test or evaluate the algorithms that are submitted to us through this voluntary program. 1:45:45 Charles Romine: We don't test specifically for Algorithms, demographic effects. We're talking about the demographic effects across all of the Algorithms that are submitted. 1:49:30 Rep. Mark Meadows (NC): Is you mentioned about not having any real time systems, and yet we had a testimony just a couple of weeks ago from Georgetown that indicated that Chicago Police Department, Detroit Police Department has real-time. They purchased it where they're actually taking real-time images. Do They Ping the FBI to validate what they've picked up in real-time with what you have on your database? Kimberly Del Greco: I mean, there are authorized law enforcement entities that have access to our system. 1:53:25 Rep. Mark Meadows (NC): I would suggest that you put this pilot program on hold, because I don't know of any appropriations that specifically allowed you to have this, this pilot program. Are you aware of any? Because you keep referring back to a 2001 law, and I'm not, I'm not aware of any appropriations that have been given you the right to do this pilot program. Austin Gould: I'm not aware of any specific appropriations. Rep. Mark Meadows (NC): Exactly, so I would recommend that you stop it until you find out your statutory authority. 2:29:12 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): The TSA has outlined proposals to collaborate with private companies including Delta and Jet Bue to develop and implement their facial recognition search systems. Is this correct? Austin Gould: Ma'am, we've issued a security program amendment to Delta to allow them to use biometric identification at their bagdrop. In terms of partnering with them to develop the backend matching system, that is something that we're solely engaged withCBP on..... Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): And the bagdrop, those are the computers that folks check in and get their boarding pass from? Austin Gould: That would be the, I would use the term "kiosk" for that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): "The kiosk?" Austin Gould: Delta uses that technology at their kiosk. TSA has no equity there, that's solely to verify that passenger has a reservation with Delta where we have equities that are checkpoint and also at the bagdrop where we're required to ensure that the passengers match to their bag. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): Do individuals know that that is happening and do they provide explicit consent? Is it opt in? Austin Gould: Passengers have the opportunity to not participate. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): So it's opt out, but not opt in? Austin Gould: It is, yes ma'am. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): So it's possible that jet blue and Delta are working with the TSA to capture photos of passengers faces without their explicit opt-in consent? Austin Gould: Man, I was down in Atlanta last week and watched the Delta Check-in Process, the bagdrop process, and it was very clear, while I was down there, the passengers were afforded the opportunity, if you'd like to use, you know, facial capture for identification, please stand in front of the camera and we'll do so. There was no automatic capture of passengers or anything like that. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): And this capture is not saved in any way, but is a..-correct, right? Austin Gould: No, ma'am. The camera captures the image. The image is encrypted. It is sent to the TVS matching system, which is what CBP uses solely for the purpose of match. And then that match result is sent back to to the operator. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): Is that captured image destroyed? Austin Gould: It's not retained at all. No, ma'am. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY): So it's sent, but it's not retained? Austin Gould: It's not retained on the camera. No, ma'am. Hearing: , House Committee on Oversight and Reform, May 22, 2019 Witnesses Neema Singh Guliani - Senior Legislative Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Clare Garvie - Center on Privacy & Technology Senior Associate at Georgetown Law School Joy Buolamwini - Founder of the Algorithmic Justice League Andrew Ferguson - Law Professor at the University of the District of Columbia Transcript: 13:15 Joy Buolamwini Due to the consequences of failures of this technology, I decided to focus my MIT research on the accuracy of facial analysis systems. These studies found that for the task of guessing a gender of a face; IBM, Microsoft, and Amazon had errors of no more than 1% for lighter-skinned men. In the worst case, those errors rose to over 30% for darker skinned women. Given such accuracy disparities, I wondered how large tech companies could have missed these issues. It boiled down to problematic dataset choices. In evaluating benchmark data sets from organizations like NIST, (The National Institute for Standards and technology) I found some surprising imbalances. One missed dataset was 75% male and 80% lighter skin, or what I like to call a pale male dataset. We cannot adequately evaluate facial analysis technologies without addressing this critical issue. Moving forward, the demographic and phenotypic composition of missed benchmarks must be made public and updated to better inform decision makers about the maturity of facial analysis technology. 21:30 Clare Garvie Face recognition gives law enforcement a power that they've never had before and this power raises questions about our fourth and first amendment protections. Police can't secretly fingerprint a crowd of people from across the street. They also can't walk through that crowd demanding that everybody produce their driver's license, but they can scan their faces,remotely and in secret, and identify each person thanks to face recognition technology. 22:00 Clare Garvie Last year, the Supreme Court in Carpenter noted that for the government to secretly monitor and catalog every one of our movements across time and space violates our right to privacy protected by the fourth amendment. Face recognition enables precisely this type of monitoring, but that hasn't stopped Chicago, Detroit, and other cities from acquiring and piloting this capability. The Supreme Court held in NAACP vs. Alabama, Tally vs. California, and others that the first amendment protects the right to anonymous speech and association. Face recognition technology threatens to upend this protection. 23:00 Clare Garvie Face recognition makes mistakes and its consequences will be born disproportionately by African Americans. 1. Comunities of color are disproportionately the targets of police surveillance, face recognition being no exception. San Diego found that their police used face recognition up to a two and a half times more on African Americans than on anyone else. 2. People of color are disproportionately enrolled in police face recognition systems, thanks to being over-represented in mugshot databases that the systems run on. And 3, Studies continue to show that the accuracy of face recognition varies depending on the race of the person being searched. Face recognition makes mistakes and risks making more mistakes, more misidentification's of African Americans. And the state could mean you're accused of a crime you didn't commit, like the Brown University student erroneously identified as one of the Sri Lankan bombers earlier this month. One of this country's foundational principles is equal protection under the law. Police use of face recognition may not comport with this principle. 24:05 Clare Garvie Left unchecked, current police face recognition practices threaten our due process rights. My research has uncovered the fact that police submit what can only be described as garbage data into face recognition systems expecting valuable leads in return. The NYPD submitted a photo of actor Woody Harrelson to find an unknown suspect in a beer theft. They have submitted photos of suspect whose eyes are mouths have been cut and pasted in from another person's photo, essentially, fabricating evidence. Agencies submit drawings of suspects in places of photos as well, despite research showing that this will not work. Worse, officers' at times then skip identification procedures and go straight to arresting someone on the basis of a face recognition search. This practice runs counter both to common sense and to department's own policies and these practices raised serious concerns about accuracy and the innocence of the person arrested because of a face recognition search. 25:15 Clare Garvie These systems produce Brady material, information that under our constitutional right to due process must be turned over to the defense, but it's not. 25:25 Clare Garvie For all these reasons, a moratorium on the use of face recognition by police is both appropriate and necessary. 30:15 Neema Singh Guliani The committee should Look at companies that are aggressively marketing this technology to the government, including how accurate their technologies are and what responsibility they take to prevent abuse. Companies are marketing this technology for serious uses, like identifying someone during a police encounter, and we know far too little. For example, Amazon has even refused to disclose who it sells this technology too and companies like Microsoft and Face Burst have so far not received significant congressional attention. 30:45 Neema Singh Guliani There are efforts across the country to stop this dangerous spread of this technology. San Francisco has banned the use by city departments and Amazon shareholders are today taking the unprecedented step of voting on a resolution that would stop the company from selling this technology to the government and force it to study the human rights impacts. Congress should follow these good examples and put in place a moratorium on law enforcement use. 39:44 Rep. Katie Hill (CA) Professor Ferguson, do you think that the supreme court can rule quickly enough upon the use of these technologies as the cases arise to thwart constitutionally questionable uses? Andrew Ferguson They can, but they won't do as good a job as congress regulating it. Now, Justice Alito has repeatedly made that claim, and I think he's correct to say that this kind of technology should be regulated first, by Congress. The fourth amendment floor will exist and the Supreme Court will address it. But this body has the primary responsibility to regulate in this field. 44:57 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) Did the state legislature and the governor actually pass legislation saying it was okay for the FBI to access every single person in their state who has a driver's license? Did that happen in those 18 or 19 states that gave that permission to the FBI? Neema Singh Guliani No, and that's the problem. This was all in secret essentially. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) So some unelected person at the FBI talks to some unelected person at the state level and they say, "yeah, go ahead". Here's.. In the case of Ohio, we've got 11 million people, most of them drive, here's 10 million folks who you can now have their, have this database. Neema Singh Guliani Right, and the people who wanted a driver's license many times didn't know these systems were operating either. 1:02:16 Rep. Michael Cloud (TX) Miss Buolamwini, did I say that right? Joy Buolamwini Yes, You did. Rep. Michael Cloud (TX) Okay. You mentioned Facebook, in your remarks and I find that interesting cause I'm extremely concerned about the government having this kind of unknown checked ability. I would be curious to get your thoughts of corporations having the same sort of ability and also Ms.Garvie and Ms. Guliani, if you want to speak to that too. Joy Buolamwini Absolutely. So you're looking at a platform that has over 2.6 billion users and over time, Facebook has been able to amass enormous facial recognition capabilities using all of those photos that we tagged without our permission. What we're seeing is that we don't necessarily have to accept this as the default. So in the EU where GDPR was passed, because there's a provision for biometric data consent, they actually have an option where you have to opt in. Right now we don't have that in the US and that's something we could immediately require today. 1:09:10 Joy Buolamwini We don't even have reporting requirements, at least in the UK where they have done pilots of facial recognition technology. There are reported results and you have false positive match rates of over 90%. There's a big brother Watch UK report that came out that showed more than 2,400 innocent people had their faces misidentified. 1:13:05 Clare Garvie Law enforcement agencies don't typically have access to the training data or to how the algorithms work as well, because these are private companies that have developed these systems and it's considered a trade secret. 1:14:22 Clare Garvie We see China as a bit of a roadmap of what's possible with this technology in the absence of rules. And in the absence of rules, this is a system where everybody is enrolled in the backend and there are enough cameras to allow law enforcement to track where somebody is anytime they show their face in public, to upload their photo and see where they've been over the last two weeks, be that public rallies or an alcoholics anonymous meeting or, a rehab clinic. That information is now available at the click of a button or the upload of a photo. That's what face recognition looks like with no rules. 1:15:14 Clare Garvie Our research has found that, two, at least two major jurisdictions, Chicago and Detroit have purchased this capability and have paid to keep it, to maintain it. Chicago says they do not use it. Detroit, did not deny that they were using it. There's is designed to operate with project greenlight, which is specifically locations like, yes, gas stations and liquor stores, but also churches and clinics and schools. 1:41:41 Clare Garvie A handful of other agencies across the country, Los Angeles, the West Virginia Intelligence Fusion Center, and others have either piloted or have looked to purchase this technology as well. 1:41:55 Rep. Carol Miller (WV) Are there any federal agencies to your knowledge that utilize real time face surveillance? Clare Garvie The U.S. Secret service is piloting a program around the White House complex as we speak. We do not know the degree to which the FBI has been piloting this. We do know they have acquired or have been using Amazon recognition, which is the same, uh, surveillance capability that Orlando has been piloting in real time. But there is no transparency into how an when they're using that. 1:44:55 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) Ms. Buolamwini, right now, Amazon can scan your face without your consent, all of our faces without our consent and sell it to the government, all without our knowledge, correct? Joy Buolamwini Yes. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) And you know, Mr Chair, I'd like to seek unanimous consent on how Amazon actually met with ICE officials over facial recognition systems that could identify immigrants. I'd like to submit this to the congressional record. Chairperson Without objection. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) Thank you so much. Um, Miss Garvie, in fact, it's not just Amazon that's doing this right? It's Facebook. It's Microsoft. It's a very large amount of tech corporations, correct? Clare Garvie That's correct. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) And you think it's fair to say that Americans are essentially being spied on and surveilled on a massive scale without their consent or knowledge? Clare Garvie I would make a bit of a distinction between what Facebook, and other companies are doing, but yielding to Miss Buolamwini for more specifics on this. I will say most of the law enforcement agency systems operate on DMV databases or mugshot databases, so information that has been collected by agencies rather than companies. 1:50:15 Joy Buolamwini So there's a case with Mr. Bah, an 18 year old African American man who was misidentified in Apple stores as a thief. And in fact, he was falsely arrested multiple times because of this kind of misidentification. 2:07:50 Rep. Jimmy Gomez (CA) Until February of this year, Amazon had not submitted its controversial facial recognition technology recognition to third party testing with the National Institute of Standards and technology known as NIST. In a January, 2019 blog post, Amazon stated that "Amazon recognition can't be downloaded for testing outside of Amazon." In short, Amazon would not submit to outside testing of their algorithm. Despite the fact that Amazon had not submitted its facial recognition product to outside testing, it still sold that product to police departments. In 2017, police in Washington county, Oregon started using Amazon recognition technology. 2:28:15 Rep. Gerald Connolly (VA) The ubiquity of this technology, it strikes me, maybe we've already kind of mostly lost this battle. 2:36:30 Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD) We are now seeing that most companies that develop facial recognition systems offer also real time software. Do we know how many of these are selling their technology to government actors in the United States? Clare Garvie That's right. Most, if not all companies that market face recognition to law enforcement in the U.S., also advertise the abilities to do face surveillance. We have no idea how widespread this is thanks to a fundamental absence of transparency. We have limited visibility into what Chicago is doing, what Detroit's doing. Orlando, the secret service here in Washington, D.C. and in New York, thanks to FOIA records and investigative journalists work. But for a vast majority of jurisdictions, we have no idea. 2:37:20 Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD) But well, what's the minimum you think? Clare Garvie So, we can estimate conservatively that face recognition generally both used as an investigative tool, and potentially as a surveillance tool is, accessible to at very least, a quarter of all law enforcement agencies across the U.S. That's a conservative estimate because it's based on 300 or so records requests where there are 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country. 2:39:00 Joy Buolamwini So Facebook has a patent, where they say because we have all of these space prints collected often without consent, we can now give you an option as a retailer to identify somebody who walks into the store and in their patent they say, "we can also give that face a trustworthiness score and based on that trustworthiness score, we might determine if you have access or not to a valuable good". So this... Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD) Facebook is selling this now? Joy Buolamwini This is a patent that they filed; as in something that they could potentially do with the capabilities they have, so as we're talking about state surveillance, we absolutely have to be thinking about corporate surveillance as well. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD213: CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law

27 april 2020 | 150 min

The U.S. Treasury has been legally robbed! In this episode, discover the secret provisions in the multi-trillion dollar CARES Act that no one is talking about (like the new process for over the counter drug approvals) and discover the reasons behind problems that everyone is talking about (like why Mom & Pops can't get a small business loan approved but Fogo de Chao can.) The good news is that the problems are so obvious that they are easily fixed... If Congress ever comes back from vacation. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Equifax Breach Surprise Medical Bills WTF is the Federal Reserve? The COVID-19 Response Laws Bills Text: Roll Call: House passed by voice vote at 1:25pm on March 27th Transcript: Tom Massie demanded a recorded vote but an insufficient number of members supported him and the demand for a recorded vote was refused Signed by Trump on March 27 CARES Act Outline - Keeping Workers Paid and Employed, Health Care System Enhancements, and Economic Stabilization - Keeping American Workers Paid and Employed Act : "Paycheck Protection Program" (Small Business Loans) The Federal Government will guarantee 100% of the loans made under this authority between February 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020. The loans are allowed to be used by businesses to pay for their employees salaries, tips, sick and vacation time, health care, retirement benefits, and state and local taxes. Sole proprietors and independent contractors are eligible. All payments are capped at a salary rate of $100,000/yr per individual. Payments are not eligible for employees who live outside the United States, even if they are US citizens. A “small business” is defined as a business with fewer than 500 employees per physical location. Usually, franchises in a large corporate chain would be except from receiving these loans, but that exemption is waived. Nonprofits and veterans organizations are eligible as well. The maximum loan amount is $10 million. No personal guarantee or collateral can be required to get the loans between February 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020. There are no penalties allowed for prepayment of the loans. The Federal government will collect no administration fees. Interest rates are capped at 4% Fees for banks: The government will pay the bankers processing fees of 5% for loans under $350,000, 3% for loans between $350,000 and $2 million, and 1% of loans over $2 million. Loan payments must be allowed to be deferred - so no required payments of principal, interest, or fees - for at least 6 months and up to one year. The loans are allowed to be sold on the secondary market, but if the investor doesn’t want to abide by the deferment requirements, the government can buy the loan. Banks are going to be exempted from some disclosure requirements for these loans. The law authorizes $349 billion for this program. : The loans from Section 1102 are eligible for forgiveness - as in you don’t have to pay them back - if the loan money was used for payroll costs, interest-only on mortgage payments (it specifically excludes payments towards the principal on a mortgage loan), rent payments, and/or utility payments. The government will pay the bankers for amount of the loan forgiven plus interest, capped at the amount of the principal on the loan. The amount of loan forgiveness will be reduced if the business employees fewer people during the COVID-19 crisis than they did before. The amount of forgiveness will be reduced by the amount of salary that employees who make less than $100,000/yr have their pay reduced beyond a 25% cut. Businesses can get loan forgiveness for extra money given to tipped employees. Businesses who re-hire their employees or re-instate employees salary to their pre-crisis level by June 30, 2020 will be eligible to have their loans forgiven. The banks will decide who will have their loans forgiven and banks are prohibited from being punished if the documentation submitted to them is wrong until June 30, 2020. : From January 31, 2020 through December 31, 2020, businesses with fewer than 500 employees, sole proprietorships, and independent contractors can request a $10,000 advance to pay for employee sick leave, payroll, increased costs for materials, rent, or mortgage payments. The business can be approved using a credit score or self certification of the ability to repay. The advance can be up to $10,000 and must be paid within 3 days. If the applicant is approved for a loan, the advance will be reduced from the loan forgiveness amount. If the applicant isn’t approved, the advance doesn’t have to be repaid. $10 billion is appropriated for the advances. : The government will pay the principal, interest, and fees for six months on some existing loans that are guaranteed by the government by the Small Business Act. $17 billion is appropriated for these payments. : Until March 27, 2021, small businesses that want to declare bankruptcy and reorganize under Chapter 11 must have debts under $7.5 million instead of $2,725,625 as is usually the case, which increases the number of small businesses that will be eligible. - Assistance for American Workers, Families, and Businesses : Unemployment Insurance Provisions : Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Who qualifies: People who would qualify under existing State laws People who self-certify that are able to work except that the person has been diagnosed with COVID-19, someone in their home has been diagnosed with COVID-19, they are caring for someone with COVID-19, has a child whose daycare or school is closed due to COVID-19, can’t get to work because of a COVID-19 quarantine, their work is closed due to COVID-19, or they are self employed. People who do not qualify are people who have the ability to telework with pay or people who are receiving paid sick leave or other paid leave benefits Effective period: Beginning on or after January 27, 2020 and ending on or before December 31, 2020 Limits: No one can get unemployment benefits for more than 39 weeks, but this can be extended by the Secretary of Labor if needed : Unemployment Amounts: It’s the amount determined by your state’s unemployment law plus $600 per week if the state chooses to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor. The Federal government will pay for 100% of the costs of the extra unemployment payments and the administration costs. It’s an unlimited appropriation and it’s valid until July 31, 2020. : Rebates and Other Individual Provisions : Issues a means tested “advanced refund" of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child. You only get the full amount as an adult if you make $75,000 per adult or less. People who make more than $75,000 per adult will have their check amount reduced based on their income up to about $100,000. People who make more than that will get nothing. The payment will be delivered via direct deposit to anyone who has authorized the IRS to do so since January 1, 2018 while everyone else will have to wait for checks. If we accidentally get overpaid, the IRS can’t charge us interest on that payment. The payments will be made for the 2019 tax year if you have already done your taxes for last year. If you haven’t, it’ll be based on 2018. They will send a notification in the mail to us about our payments to our last known address, which will tell us the amount and if it’s going to be delivered via direct deposit or by check. : Waives rules that penalize removing money from your retirement accounts if you take the money out between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020.. You can take out up $100,000 in “coronavirus-related distributions”. You are allowed to pay it back in full for 3 years starting on the day you took the money out. To qualify, you have to self certify that you are someone who had COVID-19, is caring for a spouse or dependent who had COVID-19, or someone who was financially screwed in some way due to being quarantined, having work hours reduced, or having to care for a child. : Waives the requirements that people over the age of 72, or their dependents who inherited their retirement accounts, to withdraw some money from the retirement accounts every year. The waiver is valid even for people who were not adversely affected by COVID-19. : Allows people - even those that don’t itemize their deductions - to deduct $300 in donations in 2020 for cash payments given to charities, a government organization, educational organizations, veterans organizations… There’s a long list. Applies to taxable years starting with 2020. : For people who do itemize their deductions, the current limit of cash contributions than can be written off (which is a maximum of 60% of the taxpayer’s tax bill for the year) is suspended. You can deduct up to your entire tax bill, although maybe even more because carry-overs are allowed. For corporations, the usual limit of cash contributions that can be written off (10% of the corporation’s income) is increased to 25% of the corporation’s income. The corporate limit increase is valid only in 2020. : Allows employers to pay for some of an employee’s student loan - principal and/or interest - tax free if the payment is made by January 1, 2021. - Business provisions : Employers with more than 100 employees will be able to get a tax credit for half of the wages they pay to their employee’s who can’t work, with a limit of $10,000 per employee per quarter. Employer with fewer than 100 employees can get the tax credit for all their employees. Employers who qualify are ones that had to close due to COVID-19 or whose gross receipts are less than 50% of what they were the same quarter last year. Employers who take out the small business loans created by this law can’t get this credit too. They will lose this tax credit in the quarter after their gross receipts are more than 80% of what they were in same quarter the prior year. This is predicted to save companies $54.6 billion. : Allows employers to defer payroll taxes, with half the amount required to be paid by December 31, 2021 and the other half due by December 31, 2022. Businesses that have had loans forgiven using the provisions in this law are not eligible. : The IRS code has, for many years, allowed business losses to be carried over to following years, so that the companies tax liability will be lower in the years to come. This law changes that so business losses from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 can be carried backwards to each of the five years before the loss while also allowing the existing option to carry the losses forward too. The law also removes the limit that said that this couldn’t be done to offset more than 80% of taxable income for 2018, 2019, or 2020, which means this can be used to zero out their taxable income for years since 2013. This means that companies will be able to get refunds on taxes they paid on taxes going as far back as 2013. In those years, corporate tax rates were higher, so reducing their income levels retroactively lets them get more money back from those higher tax years. There’s no requirement that the businesses that get this tax gift be in any way negatively affected by COVID-19. This is estimated to provide $25.5 billion to corporations : Prior to the 2017 tax cut law, individual taxpayers could deduct unlimited business losses against other kinds of income. The 2017 tax law changed that so that losses could only be used to shelter the first $250,000 or $500,000 of a married couple’s nonbusiness income, such as capital gains from stock market investments. This law retroactively removes new limits imposed by the 2017 tax law going back to 2018 and until 2021. This will allow individuals to submit amended returns and get refunds that weren’t allowed in 2018 and 2019. In reality, this will allow wealthy investors to use losses generated by depreciation in real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market. No harm from COVID-19 needs to be proven in order to use and benefit from this provision. This is the second largest tax giveaway in this law. This is projected to cost almost $170 billion. : Allows corporations expecting a refund due to the repeal of the alternative minimum tax in 2017 to get that refund faster. : Increases the amount corporations can deduct on the interest expenses it pays on its loans from 30% of the company’s “adjusted taxable income” to 50%. Companies can do this regardless of any affect COVID-19 had on their business. This is projected to cost $13.4 billion. : A tax credit for real estate owners, this changes a provision in the 2017 tax law to allow real estate owners to write off the costs of improvements to the interiors of their properties in the first year instead of spreading them out over many years. This is backdated to the enactment of the tax law, which will allow real estate owners to get tax refunds. : Waives the federal excise tax on any alcohol used in hand sanitizer for calendar year 2020. - Supporting America’s Health Care System in the Fight Against the Coronavirus - Addressing Supply Shortages - Medical Product Supplies : Orders a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the security of the United States medical product supply chain, specifically by evaluating the dependance of the United States and our private sector on critical drugs and devices sources or manufactured outside of the United States. : Manufacturers of certain types of masks and ventilators are granted immunity from lawsuits during public health emergencies. - Mitigating Emergency Drug Shortages : Requires the manufacturers of drugs critical to the public health to report interruptions to the supply of the drug when the cause of the interruption is an interruption in the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient. They must also create and implement risk management plans. Is not effective until mid-September 2020. - Preventing Medical Device Shortages : Requires manufacturers of medical devices that are critical to public health to report to the government during or in advance of a public health emergency any interruptions in the manufacture of the devices that could lead to a meaningful disruption in the supply of that device in the United States. Unless it’s not possible, the government must get this notification at least 6 months prior to the date that the interruption or discontinuance is expected. The government must then distribute the information to appropriate health care industry officials. The government can keep the information from the public if disclosing it increases the likelihood of over-purchase of the product. - Access to Health Care For COVID-19 Patients - Coverage of Testing and Preventive Services : Amends the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the ) so that coverage is only for COVID-19 tests that are “approved, cleared, or authorized” or that the developer has requested or intends to request emergency use authorization, is developed in and authorized by a State, or another test that HHS determines appropriate in writing. This provision did not change the language (loophole) that requires visits be covered only if they “result in the ordering or administration of a COVID-19 test.” : Health care providers must publish on a public internet website the prices for COVID-19 testing. If health insurers have a negotiated rate with a providers, they are allowed to pay that rate if it is lower than the published rate. If there is no negotiated rate, the insurance companies must pay the amount listed on their public website. : The health insurance companies “shall” be required to cover, without cost sharing, “any qualifying coronavirus preventive service” (which is “a service or immunization that is intended to prevent or mitigate coronavirus disease 2019) within 15 days of it’s official recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. - Support for Health Care Providers : Provides $1.32 billion in extra funding for community health centers that are testing for COVID-19 : Gives legal immunity in State and Federal courts to medical professionals who volunteer and provide services during the COVID-19 public health emergency declared on January 31, 2020, but the immunity is only valid for actions that took place after March 27th (the date of enactment). The immunity is not valid if the health care professional acted with willful or gross negligence or if the health professional was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. - Miscellaneous Provisions : Elderly people who are homebound due to social distancing requirements during the COVID-19 emergency will be able to get government food deliveries as if they were homebound due to illness, as the law usually requires. - Innovation : Allows contracts created by BARDA (the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) during a public health emergency to continue past the end date of the public health emergency. : Requires - no option - the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expedite the development and review of new animal drugs if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the new drug might prevent or treat an animal disease that could cause serious or life-threatening diseases in humans, if the expedited process is requested by the organization creating the animal drug. - Health Care Workforce : Appropriates $23.7 million per year through 2025 for grants to health professions schools and other public and nonprofit health or educational organizations, but with most of the grants being funded at significantly lower rates than they were during the Obama years. For example, for loan repayments and fellowships, they provided $5 million/yr during 2010-2014; that’s decreased to $1.2 million for 2021-2025. For educational assistance for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, they provided $60 million/yr during 2010-2014; that’s decreased to $15 million for 2021-2025. For grants to public and nonprofit private hospitals and medical schools, they provided $125 million/yr during 2010-2014; that’s decreased to under $49 million for 2021-2025. For health education center programs, they provided $125 million/yr during 2010-2014; that’s decreased to under $41.2 million for 2021-2025. For public health training centers, they provided at least $43 million/yr for 2012-2015; that’s decreased to $17 million for 2021-2025. The only category that gets significantly greater funding is a pediatric specialty loan repayment program that requires the student to work for at least 2 years in pediatric medicine to get the money. The funding level was $50 million/yr from 2010-2013, the funding is authorized to be unlimited from 2021 through 2025. All of these are authorizations for appropriations, they don’t provide any additional money. : Requires grants and contracts be awarded for a Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program, that would train health professionals in geriatrics. The law authorizes about $40 million, but doesn’t appropriate it. This is a problem because Congress frequently will authorize programs they have no intention of funding, and without the funding, they don’t really exist. : Authorizes appropriations, but does not appropriate, for about $138 million/yr for fiscal years 2021 through 2025, which is a decrease from the funding of $338 million that was valid from 2011-2016. Also authorizes, but does not appropriate, $117 million/yr from 2021-2015 for nursing student loans. - Education Provisions : Through 2021, the requirement that all colleges match Federal funding for ) is waived except for private for-profit organizations. : Colleges will be allowed to use some of their federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant money for students facing “unexpected expenses and unmet financial need”. The student can be given up to the maximum Federal Pell Grant for that year (which is ). : Allows colleges to pay student their work-study wages up to the full amount they would have been paid had there not been an emergency. They can make the payments in one-time grants or as multiple payments. : The semester that students with loans couldn’t finish because of COVID-19 will not be counted towards their lifetime limits on subsidized loan eligibility. : The semester that students with loans couldn’t finish because of COVID-19 will not be counted towards their lifetime limits on Pell Grant eligibility. : Colleges, , that have students with loans withdraw from their schools due to COVID-19 will not have to repay the money they received from that student. The students will not have to return the money either and their loan obligation will be cancelled. The schools are allowed to let the student return after a leave of absence. : Gives the Secretary of Education the option, at the request of a State, local, or tribal government, to waive statutory and regulatory requirements except for civli rights laws. The waivers may also be granted to charter schools. The waivers will not be valid past the 2019-2020 school year. : During the COVID-19 emergency, the Secretary of Education can make payments - including on principal and interest - on loans issued to historically black colleges and universities through the HBCU Capital Financing Loan program, but the payments will have to be repaid to the Department of Education no sooner than one year after the COVID-19 emergency ends. The law appropriates $62 million. : The Secretary of Education is required to suspend all payments due for student loans until September 30, 2020. Interest is not allowed to accrue during the suspension time. Each month during the suspicion must be treated as if the payments were made for the purpose of loan forgiveness programs. During the suspension period, student loan collections actions including wage garnishment and tax refund reductions must stop. People with student loans are allowed to keep making payments towards their principal. : Allows the Secretary of Education to change the requirements, including matching requirements, for grant money given to colleges for the year of the emergency and the following fiscal year. : Allows the Secretary of Education to excuse teachers from obligations they made to receive grants. The Secretary of Education is required to waive requirements that teaching service be consecutive for loan forgiveness as long as the teach completes a total of 5 years of required teaching service. - Labor Provisions : Allows employers who will get a credit for the sick and family leave they are providing their employees to get that credit in advance. : Required payments to employee pension plans can be postponed until January 1, 2021, but they must be paid with interest. : Allows any government agency to change their contracts to allow the government to pay for up to 40 hours per week of paid leave that a contractor provides to its employees until September 30, 2020. This only applies to contractors who can’t work because the facilities where they work are closed and who can’t do their work remotely. - Finance Committee : High deductible health insurance plans that do not include deductibles for telehealth services will still be considered high deductible plans. : Starting on January 1, 2020, menstrual care products are considered medical products, which allows people to purchase them with Health Savings Accounts. : Allows people on Medicare to be covered for telehealth visits to doctors they have not seen before. : During the COVID-19 emergency, dialysis patients who receive their treatments at home do not need to meet face to face with their doctors, which allows the visit to be conducted via telehealth. : The Secretary of Health and Human Services can allow hospice physicians or nurse practitioners to conduct patient visits via telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency : Stops the 2% Medicare sequestration from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, but extends sequestration for an extra year (to 2030 instead of 2029) : Medicare will pay an extra 20% for people diagnosed with COVID-19, using “diagnosis codes, condition codes, or other such means as may be necessary” during the emergency period declared by the : Beginning on the day that a COVID-19 vaccine is licensed, Medicare will not charge a deductible for the the vaccine or its administration. : Allows people on Medicare to get 90 day supplies of their drugs in a single refill for the during of the COVID-19 emergency declared by the HHS Secretary. : During the emergency period, the Secretary of HHS can loan hospitals an advance of up to 6 months of Medicare payments. The payments can be made periodically or in a lump sum for up to 100% of the their usual payments, 125% for critical access hospitals. Hospitals will have to be given 120 days before any payments are decreased to offset the loans and must be given at least 1 year from the date of their first loan receipt to pay back the balance in full. : Health and Human Services Extenders - Medicare Provisions : Restores the funding levels of recently gutted . $13 billion to state health insurance programs, $7.5 billion to area agencies on aging, and $5 billion for aging and disability resources centers, and $12 billion for the National Center for Benefits and Outreach Enrollment. - Medicaid Provisions : Delays $4 billion in payment cuts to hospitals written into the Affordable Care Act which were supposed to begin in 2014. Hospitals were expected to be treating fewer uninsured individuals when the cuts were written into law. - Human Services and Other Health Programs : Extends the “Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Program” (abstinence eduction) from its scheduled end of May 22, 2020 to November 30, 2020. The program gives grants to states that agree to promote abstinence-only sex ed. and funding levels : Extends the “Personal Responsibility Education Program” from its scheduled end of May 22, 2020 to November 30, 2020. - Public Health Provisions : Adds $1.5 billion to the for Community Health Centers to bring the funding to equal the 2019 funding, and funds them at the same rate through November 30, 2020. Adds $241 million to the for the National Health Service Corps, whose funding was allowed to lapse in December 2019, restoring its funding to equal the 2019 funding. Adds $45 million to teaching health centers that operate graduate medical programs to bring the to equal the 2019 funding, and funds them at the same rate through November 30, 2020. - Over the Counter Drugs - OTC Drug Review : Creates a new process for FDA approval of over the counter drug applications. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue administrative orders to approve changes and new uses of over the counter drugs instead of requiring drug companies to go through the standard review process that takes longer. Companies whose applications are approved will get 18 month exclusivity on their drugs. : Allows sunscreen companies with products affected by a pending FDA order to request that the HHS Secretary instead use the new, faster, less complete administrative order process created by Section 3851 for over the counter drugs. They must make this request by mid September 2020. Administrative orders issued by the HHS Secretary will be “deemed to be a final order”. As part of this process, the company may request and the HHS Secretary must conduct a “confidential meeting” with the company to discuss what data they should submit to show that their ingredients are safe and effective. - User Fees : Beginning in fiscal year 2021, to fund the new processes for over the counter drug approvals created by Section 3851, facilities that manufacture over the counter drugs will be assessed an annual fee and there will be either a $500,000 or $100,000 fee for requests to change drug monographs using the process created by Section 3851. Companies will not have to pay the fee if they are requesting changes to enhance warnings or instructions on the labels. - Economic Stabilization and Assistance to Severely Distressed Sectors of the United States Economy - Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020 : Defines a “covered loss” as “losses directly or indirectly as a result of coronavirus, as determined by the Secretary”, with “the Secretary” being Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. “Eligible business” is an air carrier or “a United States business that has not otherwise received adequate economic relief in the form of loans or loan guarantees provided under this Act” : Gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authorization to “make loans, loan guarantees and other investments” to "eligible businesses”, States, and local governments up to a total of $500 billion dollars. $46 billion must be directed at the airline industry and $454 billion will be loans, loan guarantees, and “other investments” determined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. : Limits the amount of money that an employee of a business that gets a Treasury Department loan to $3 million plus half of whatever they got over $3 million in 2019 for the length of the loan plus one year. : Until March 1, 2022, the Secretary of Transportation will have the authority to require any airline that takes loan money to maintain their flight schedules, as the Secretary of Transportation determines is needed. : Suspends a 7.5% Federal excise tax on airlines from March 27, 2020 through the end of the year. : Amends the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform law to allow the FDIC to provide insurance for all accounts of banks that don’t accrue interest until December 31, 2020. : Between March 13, 2020 and either the end of the COVID-19 emergency or December 31, 2020, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is exempt from requirements that they give the public a day’s notice before their meetings and that they make public the minutes of their behind closed doors meetings. They must only keep a record of their votes and reasons for their votes which might be released to the public later (there’s no requirement that they be released). : Allows unlimited lending to “nonbank financial institutions” such as insurance companies, venture capitalists, currency exchanges, and pawn shops until the end of the emergency declared on March 13 or until December 31, 2020. : Lowers the amount of actual money that community banks must have in their possession from 9% to 8%, and gives the banks with less than that a “reasonable grace period” to get the money. This is valid until the end of the emergency declared on March 13 or until December 31, 2020. : Allows banks to avoid counting troubled loans as troubled on their balance sheets from March 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 or 60 days after the emergency declared on March 13th ends. : Exempts banks from relatively new reporting requirements on their credit losses from March 27, 2020 through the end of the emergency declared on March 13 or December 31, 2020. : Allows the Treasury Department to use its Exchange Stabilization Fund (which had $93.7 billion in it as of February 2020) to get around needing Congressional appropriations to cover any losses the Federal Reserve may need to absorb through its lending programs that allow unusual collateral to be offered like money market funds, corporate bonds, and securities. : Increases the President’s power to use the Defense Production Act by waiving the requirement for Congressional authorization for projects that cost more than $50 million for two years and waives the requirement that Congress needs 30 days advanced notice before a Defense Production Act project can start for 1 year. : Creates an Inspector General within the Treasury Department who will be appointed by the President. Says that when the Inspector General requests information, the agencies “shall, to the extent practicable” give him the information or else they will be reported to Congress. : Prohibits loans or payments originating from the Treasury and Federal Reserve authorized by Section 4003 from going to any company in which the President, Vice President, an executive department head, member of Congress or their spouses, children, or son/daughter in laws own over 20% of the voting stock. : Creates a Congressional Oversight Commission whose job is to conduct oversight of the implementation of this law by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. The commission will have five members: 1 appointed by the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), 1 appointed by the House minority leader (Kevin McCarthy), 1 appointed by the Senate majority leader (Mitch McConnell), 1 appointed by the Senate minority leader (Chuck Schumer), and 1 Chairperson co-appointed by the Speaker and Majority Leader (Pelosi and McConnell). : Companies that allow customers to adjust their payment schedules have to report that the customer is current on their payments unless their accounts are already delinquent. This is valid from January 31, 2020 through either the end of July 2020 or 4 months after the emergency declared on March 13th ends : People with Federally backed mortgages who have been affected by COVID-19 “directly or indirectly” can request and must be granted for a pause in loan payments for a maximum of about a year, but you have to request it twice (again after the first 180 days). Interest and fees will still accrue but they can’t charge any extra interest, penalties, or fees. Customers have to provide no proof of hardship. Prohibits the banks that manage Federally backed loans from moving forward with any foreclosure processes until mid-May 2020 (60 days after March 18, 2020). : People/companies that own multifamily housing with 5 or more units with Federally backed mortgages who have been affected by COVID-19 “directly or indirectly” can request and must be granted for a pause in loan payments. The forbearance (pause) can be for a total of 90 days as long as the building owner requests it three times with at least 15 days notice. People who get this pause are not allowed to evict their tenants or charge them any late fees during the mortgage payment pause. : Starting on March 27, 2020 and ending in late July 2020, landlords can not begin eviction proceedings for non-payment of rent or charge fees or penalties for not paying rent. : Prohibits the government from attaching a string to a loan or loan guarantee that requires the business to negotiate with unions over worker pay or conditions of employment. This is valid starting on the day the business is first issued the loan and ending a year after the loan is paid off. : Within 72 hours of each transaction, the Treasury Secretary must publish on the Treasury Department website a description of the transaction, the date, and the “identity of the counterparty”, the amount of the loan/guarantee/investment, how the price was determined, the interest rate, conditions, and a copy of the final term sheet. The Treasury Secretary also has to report any contracts entered into for the administration of loans or guarantees within 24 hours after the contract is entered into. The Federal Reserve has to issue reports to Congress that will have to be made public on their website within 7 days of the report being delivered to Congress. : Appropriates $500 billion : The authorities given to the Treasury Secretary and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to make loans, loan guarantees, and “investments” in businesses and banks will expire on December 31, 2020. - Air Carrier Worker Support : The Secretary of the Treasury “shall” give money to airlines and the contractors that work with them which “shall exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits”. Passenger air carriers will get $25 billion, cargo airlines $4 billion, and contractors will get $3 billion. : The employees will have to be paid whatever rate they were paid from April 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019. Steven Mnuchin will decide all terms and conditions, other than the ones set by section 4114, 4115, and 4116. The payments have to start to be made within 10 days of enactment. The Inspector General of the Treasury Department will have to audit the certifications made by the companies about employee salary and benefit rates. : Airlines or contractors that take the money can’t furlough their workers or reduce their wages or benefits until September 30, 2020, they can’t buy stock in their company or parent company, or pay out dividends. The Secretary of Transportation is also given authorization until March 1, 2022 to require only airlines or contractors that take the money to continue service to anywhere that they served as of March 1, 2020. : Prohibits the government from attaching a string to a loan or loan guarantee that requires the airline or contractor to negotiate with unions over worker pay or conditions of employment. This is valid starting on the day the business is first issued the loan and ending on September 30, 2020. : From March 24, 2020 through March 24, 2022, any airline or contractor that takes the money has to agree that no employee who made more than $425,000 in 2019 will be paid more than what they were paid in 2019, or will receive more than double their 2019 pay as a severance package. Employees that were paid more than $3 million can’t be paid more than $3 million plus half of the amount they were paid over $3 million in 2019. This includes salary, bonuses, stock awards and “other financial benefits”. : The Treasury Secretary is allowed, but not required, to accept stock and securities and other “financial instruments” from the airlines and contractors. : Appropriates $32 billion. - Coronavirus Relief Funds : Appropriates $150 billion for State, tribal and local governments. Amounts will be determined by population but each state will get at least $1.25 billion. Washington D.C. is treated as a territory and all territories will split $3 billion. Tribal governments will split $8 billion. Steven Mnuchin will decide how the tribal government money will be divided. The Inspector General of the Treasury must investigate the receipt, disbursement, and use of funds. - Miscellaneous Provisions : Allows the Postal Service to borrow $10 billion from the Treasury Department. - Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Health Response and Agency Operations Bureau of Prisons : The Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall appropriately consider” distributing personal protective equipment and test kits to the Bureau of Prisons for use by inmates and staff. : Authorizes and appropriates $300 million that the Secretary of Commerce can use for direct payments to subsistence, commercial, and charter fishery businesses. Department of Energy : Extends the authority for the Secretary of Energy to sell oil from the strategic petroleum reserve and gives the Department of Energy the authority to sell $900 million worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, $450 million in 2021 and 2022, on top of the $450 million they can sell in 2020. The Judiciary : Allows for criminal proceedings to be conducted via video teleconferencing until 30 days after the national emergency declaration terminates. It will only be allowed with the consent of the defendant or juvenile after they talk to a lawyer. Provides $400 million to prepare for the 2020 Federal election cycle, domestically or internationally. The money must be given by the Election Assistance Commission to the states within 30 days. There is no direction on how the money is divided among states. The states have to submit reports on how they use the money. Money not used by December 31, 2020 has to be returned to the Treasury. Pandemic Response Accountability Committee : Creates a Pandemic Response Accountability Committee that will investigate and report on the use of COVID-19 funds through September 2025. The committee will be operated by two full time paid employees and the other members will be inspectors generals from at least 9 federal agencies. The committee will have enforceable subpoena power. The committee is allowed, but not required, to hold public hearings. The committee will have a public website that is required to provide their findings, data, some contracting information, division of COVID-19 funds by state and congressional district, agency plans for use of funds, all recommendations made to the agencies, etc. Department of Homeland Security : Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from transferring War on Terror funds for the COVID-19 efforts. : The Secretary of Homeland Security must extend the REAL-ID deadline until at least September 30, 2021. Department of Health and Human Services Provides an additional $27 billion for “developing necessary countermeasures and vaccines, prioritizing platform-based technologies with US based manufacturing capabilities, the purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and necessary medical supplies”. Products purchased by the Federal government must be purchased in accordance with regulations on fair and reasonable pricing, ensuring affordability in the commercial market is optional. The HHS Secretary can not take any action that would slow down the development of the products. $16 billion can be spent on purchasing items for the Strategic National Stockpile. Funds can be used to construct or renovate “US based next generation manufacturing facilities, other than facilities owned by the United States government” in addition to the authority to construct or renovate private facilities that manufacture vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Adds an additional $100 billion to reimburse health care providers - public, private, and for profit - for COVID-19 expenses. : Every lab that performs or analyzes a COVID-19 test must report the result of each test to the Secretary of Health and Human Services until the end of the HHS Secretary’s public health declaration with respect of COVID-19. State Department : Provides $3 billion for the International Development Association (World Bank), $7.3 billion for the African Development Bank, and authorizes the Treasury “to make loans in an amount not to exceed the dollar equivalent 28,202,470,000 of Special Drawing Rights (which is as of April 21, 2020) OTC Drugs Bill Information Article: , Congress.gov Article: , Congress.gov Article: , United States Senate, December 10, 2019 Bill Profile: H.R.3443: , OpenSecrets.org Bill Profile: H.R.3443: , OpenSecrets.org Sen. Johnny Isakson - Georgia: , OpenSecrets.org Sen. Lamar Alexander - Tennessee: , OpenSecrets.org Articles/Documents Update: Chase Banking, April 23, 2020 Article: By Tom Hamburger and Tony Romm, The Washington Post, April 22, 2020 Article: by Jeremy Herb and Lauren Fox, CNN, April 22, 2020. Article: The New York Times, April 22, 2020 Article: The New York Times, April 21, 2020 Article: By REESE DUNKLIN, JUSTIN PRITCHARD, JUSTIN MYERS and KRYSTA FAURIA, Associated Press, April 21, 2020 Article: By IAN KULLGREN, Politico, April 20, 2020 Article: By Isaac Arnsdorf, ProPublica, April 20, 2020 Article: By Bob Herman, Axios, April 20, 2020 Article: By Dalvin Brown, USA Today, April 20, 2020 Article: By Stephanie Ruhle and Alex Johnson, NBC News, April 20, 2020 Article: By Cameron Wallace, World Oil, April 20, 2020 Article: By Ruth Simon and Peter Rudegeair, The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2020 Article: By Natasha Singer and Nicole Perlroth, The New York Times, April 20, 2020 Article: By Judd Legum, Popular Information, April 20, 2020 Article: By Matt Taibbi, Taibbi, April 17, 2020 Article: by David Dayen, The American Prospect, April 18, 2020. Press Release: , April 17, 2020. Article: By Charity L. Scott, The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2020 Article: By Rachana Pradhan and Lauren Weber, Kaiser Health News, April 16, 2020 Article: By Bharat Ramamurti, The New York Times, April 16, 2020 Article: By Mike Lillis and Scott Wong, The Hill, April 16, 2020 Article: By Stephen Gandel, CBS News, April 16, 2020 Article: By Pam Martens and Russ Martens, Wall Street on Parade, April 16, 2020 Article: By Karan R. Chhabra, Keegan McGuire, Kyle H. Sheetz, John W. Scott, Ushapoorna Nuliyalu, and Andrew M. Ryan, HealthAffairs, April 15, 2020 Article: By Alana Semuels, Time, April 15, 2020 Article: by Alan Rappeport, New York Times, April 15, 2020. Article: Americans for Financial Reform, April 15, 2020 Article: By Katherine Burton and Joshua Fineman, Bloomberg, April 14, 2020 Article: By Rachel Roubein, Politico, April 14, 2020 Article: By Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, April 14, 2020 Article: Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator for Rhode Island, April 14, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, American Prospect, April 14, 2020 Article: By Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, April 14, 2020 Article: By Shahar Ziv, Forbes, April 14, 2020 Article: By Joshua Green, Bloomberg, April 14, 2020 Article: By Stefan Becket, CBS News, April 13, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, American Prospect, April 13, 2020 Article: By Peter Whoriskey and Heather Long, The Washington Post, April 13, 2020 Article: Duane Morris, April 13, 2020 Article: By Tom Temin, Federal News Network, April 13, 2020 Article: By Isaac Arnsdorf, ProPublica, April 10, 2020 Article: By Jay Hancock and Phil Galewitz and Elizabeth Lucas, Kaiser Health News, April 10, 2020 Article: Home Care Association of New York State Blog, April 10, 2020 Article: By Wesley Whistle, Forbes, April 10, 2020 Article: By Genevieve Razick and Carolina Wirth, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, JDSUPRA, April 10, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, April 10, 2020 Article: Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2020 Article: By Matt Smith, Market Watch, April 9, 2020 Article: By Jonnelle Marte and Ann Saphir, Reuters, April 9, 2020 Article: By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, April 9, 2020 Article: By Eleanor Eagan, The American Prospect, April 9, 2020 Alert: By Brian Burgess and Julie Tibbets, Goodwin, April 8, 2020 Article: By Keith A. Reynolds, Medical Economics, April 8, 2020 Article: By Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post, April 7, 2020 Article: By Nomi Prins, The Nation, April 7, 2020 Article: By Rich Bockmann and Kevin Sun, The Real Deal, April 7, 2020 Article: By Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post, April 7, 2020 Article: By Bob Davis and Heather Haddon, The Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2020 Article: by Charles Andres, Wilson Sonsini, April 6, 2020 Article: By Peter Baker, Katie Rogers, David Enrich and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, April 6, 2020 Article: By Katherine Chiglinsky and Tom Metcalf, Bloomberg, April 6, 2020 Article: By James P. Joseph Bridget M. Weiss Dana O. Campos, Arnold & Porter, April 6, 2020 Article: By Douglas Charnas and Paul Leonard, JDSUPRA, April 3, 2020 Article: by Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, April 3, 2020 Letter: By Alexander Sammon, American College of Emergency Physicians, April 3, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, April 3, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, April 2, 2020 Article: By Alexander Sammon, American Prospect, April 1, 2020 Article: Reuters, April 1, 2020 Article: By ARI NATTER, JENNIFER A. DLOUHY AND STEPHEN CUNNINGHAM, World Oil, April 1, 2020 Article: By Jean McDevitt Bullens, Baker Newman Noyes, April 1, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, April 1, 2020 Article: By Hugh Son, The CNBC, April 1, 2020 Article: By John Werlhof, CLA, March 31, 2020 Article: By Matt Stoller, Wired, March 31, 2020 Article: Energy Alert, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, March 31, 2020 Article: Banking Exchange, March 31, 2020 Article: By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone, March 31, 2020 Article: By David White and Zachary Kribs, Kidney News Online, March 30, 2020 Article: By David White and Zachary Kribs, Kidney News Online, March 30, 2020 Statement: Commissioner of Food and Drugs - Food and Drug Administration - Stephen M. Hahn M.D., U.S. Food & Drug Administration, March 30, 2020 Article: By Health Law Practice - von Briesen & Roper, s.c., The National Law Review, March 30, 2020 Article: By Anne Cartwright and Julie Miceli, JDSUPRA, March 30, 2020 Article: By Melissa Anne Peña, The National Law Review, March 29, 2020 Article: By Brody Mullins and Ted Mann, The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2020 Press Release: By Charlie Savage, The New York Times, March 27, 2020 Press Release: The White House, March 27, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, The American Prospect, March 27, 2020 Article: By Seung Min Kim, Mike DeBonis, Erica Werner and Paul Kane, The Washington Post, March 27, 2020 Article: U.S. Food & Drug Administration, March 27, 2020 Article: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, March 27, 2020 Article: By Robert Klinger, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, JDSUPRA, March 27, 2020 Article: By Matthew Goldstein, The New York Times, March 27, 2020 Article: By Pam Martens and Russ Martens, CounterPunch, March 27, 2020 Document: New York Fed, March 27, 2020 Press Release: Homeland Security, March 26, 2020 Article: By Jeanna Smialek, The New York Times, March 26, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, American Prospect, March 26, 2020 Article: By Jesse Drucker, The New York Times, March 26, 2020 Article: By STEPHEN CUNNINGHAM, ARI NATTER AND JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, World Oil, March 25, 2020 Article: By Matt Stoller, BIG by Matt Stoller, March 25, 2020 Article: By David Dayen, American Prospect, March 25, 2020 Article: By Dawn Lim, Market Watch, March 25, 2020 Article: By Alexander Sammon, American Prospect, March 25, 2020 Document: New York Fed, March 25, 2020 Article: By Eric Lipton and Kenneth P. Vogel, The New York Times, March 25, 2020 Article: By Jonathan O'Connell, The Washington Post, March 25, 2020 Article: By Eoin Higgins, Common Dreams, March 25, 2020 Article: By Jordain Carney, The Hill, March 25, 2020 Article: By Tyler Olson, Fox News, March 25, 2020 Article: By Benjamin J. Hulac, Roll Call, March 25, 2020 Article: By Pete Schroeder and Michelle Price, Reuters, March 24, 2020 Article: By Sage Belz and David Wessel, Brookings, March 24, 2020 Press Release: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2020 Article: By Scott A. Cammarn and Mark Chorazak, The National Law Review, March 23, 2020 Article: By Tim Fitzsimons, NBC News, March 21, 2020 Article: By Ben Lane, America's Health Insurance Plans, BlueCross BlueShield Association, March 19, 2020 Article: By Ben Lane, Housing Wire, March 18, 2020 Press Release: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2020 Article: By Steve Liesman, CNBC, March 15, 2020 Article: By Sarah Karlin-Smith, Politico, March 5, 2020 Article: By Trefis Team, Great Speculations, Forbes, January 2, 2020 Article: By Jacqueline LaPointe, Revcycle Intelligence, December 20, 2019 Article: By Lori Aratani, The Washington Post, December 13, 2019 Article: By David Gelles, The New York Times, December 9, 2019 Article: By Julia Kagan, Investopedia, November 21, 2019 Article: By Alex Roff, Bloomberg Law, October 31, 2019 Article: BY Marcus Weisgerber, Defense One, October 15, 2019 Article: By Lydia Saad, Gallup, September 13, 2019 Article: By Michael Mezher, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society, May 21, 2019 Article: By Samuel Stebbins and Michael B. Sauter, USA Today, March 29, 2019 Article: By David Gelles, Natalie Kitroeff, Jack Nicas and Rebecca R. Ruiz, The New York Times, March 23, 2019 Article: Deloitte, January 22, 2019 Article: by Charles Andres, Wilson Sonsini, August 2, 2018 Article: By Jesse Drucker and Emily Flitter, The New York Times, October 13, 2018 Guidance for Industry: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), July 2018 Article: Office of Public Affairs, GAO, July 26, 2018 Article: By Katelyn Newman, U.S. News, January 29, 2018 Article: Rob Wile, Money, December 19, 2017 Article: By Brady Dennis, The Washington Post, May 11, 2015 Article: , The Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2015 Document: Bill Heniff Jr., Analyst on the Congress and Legislative Process, Government and Finance Division, CRS Report for Congress, June 17, 2008 Additional Resources Index: iShares, Apr 23, 2020 Index: by N. Sönnichsen, Apr 22, 2020 Tweet: , Twitter, April 21, 2020 Tweet: , Twitter, April 15, 2020 Index: U.S. Food & Drug Administration, March 30, 2020 Publication: Squire Patton Boggs, March 2020 , Personal Care Products Council , Twitter FAQs: , Consumer Healthcare Products Association , Federal Student Aid Firm COVID-19 Resource Center: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Letter: U.S. Senate Federal Reserve Bank of New York Federal Reserve Bank of New York Product Information: gsk Special Bulletin: , American Hospital Association Summary: , OpenSecrets.org , Publix Policy Toolkit Webpage: U.S. Election Assistance Commission Webpage: U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, March 10, 2015 Witness Dr. Margaret Hamburg: FDA Commissioner Transcript: 58:15 Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA): I'm a victim of melanoma twice. The Surgeon General has issued a report that melanoma is costing America $8.1 billion a year in health. It's a major portion of his most recent statements. I hear very little from the FDA regarding that and we worked hard on the Sunscreen Innovation Act, which passed Congress last year, to try and expedite at the time and extend applications for ingredients to be approved for over the counter sunscreen product. We are still waiting for that to happen. Can you tell me why the FDA is so reluctant to follow through and what Congress passed in terms of the Sunscreen Innovation Act? Margaret Hamburg: Well, we are committed to following through and of course preventing melanoma is a high priority as well as developing exciting new treatments for melanoma, but prevention comes first. We do need to work with industry to get the data that we need to assess safety and effectiveness and that is of course, because these products are used widely, applied often and hopefully with the right amount. Chronically...we need to understand about their absorption of these chemicals, and what that means for safety and efficacy in the individuals using them including, of course, many young children who may be at greater risk in terms of chronic use. So we want to move forward, we want to have the American people have more options in terms of sunscreen products and the protection that it can afford. But we want to work with industry to make sure that the ingredients in those sunscreens actually work and that they're safe, especially for chronic use. Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA): My time is up, but I'd like to urge you to do everything you can to expedite the implementation of those approvals. Thank you very much. Hearing: , House Transportation Committee, December 11, 2019 Witness: Edward Pierson: Boeing retiree () Transcript: 3:33:15 Ed Pierson: My name is Ed Pierson. I retired from the Boeing Company in August of 2018 as a Senior Manager at the 737 Factory in Renton, Washington. On June 9th, 2018 while the Lion Air airplane was being produced, four months before it crashed, I wrote an email to the 737 General Manager advising him to shut down the production line to allow our team time to regroup so we could save some decent planes. During this time frame, 737 Factory was in chaos. Every single factory health metric was getting record low marks, and each one was trending in the wrong direction. Following that e-mail, I requested a one-on-one meeting with the General Manager on July 18th and repeated my recommendation to shut down the factory for a brief period of time. When I mentioned that I've seen operations in the military shut down for lesser safety concerns, I will never forget his response, which was, "The military isn't a profit making organization." Keep in mind that on October 29, 2018 when the Lion Airplane crashed, killing 189 people, it was only two months old. After the crash, I wrote a letter to Boeing's Chairman, President, and CEO, Dennis Muilenburg. Mr. Muilenburg asked his general council to communicate with me and we spoke on three occasions where I renewed my warnings. On February 14th, 2019, the Boeing's Assistant General Council assured me that Boeing had seen nothing that would suggest the existence of embedded quality or safety issues. I wrote a follow up letter with supporting documentation to Boeing's Board of Directors requesting that they take urgent action but received no response. Less than a month later, on March 10th, 2019 the Ethiopians Airlines flight 302 crashed killing 157 people. That airplane was only four months old. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD212: The COVID-19 Response Laws

6 april 2020 | 99 min

Since COVID-19 began ravaging the human race, Congress has passed three bills into law that are meant to respond to both the health care crisis and the financial crisis. In this episode, Jen highlights the first two laws in their entirety and the provisions from the third law that are most likely to help the most Americans - the cash payments and unemployment provisions. She also documents the process used to pass all three bills into law, because this is NOT the way Congress is supposed to function. We have some firing to do. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Surprise Medical Bills Bills HR 6074: Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 Document Text: Summary: Passed in the House on march 4 (two no votes were two GOP’s I’ve never heard of) Passed in the Senate. Rand Paul was the only person to vote against it There was no rules committee hearing because they passed it bypasses suspending the rules of the house (requires 2/3rds of the house to vote yes to pass) Trump administration requested $2.5 billion : $2.2 billion for the CDC that they can use until September 30, 2022 Requires $475 million of the CDC grants to be spent in 30 days Some of this money can be used to purchase and insure cars in foreign countries : $836 million for NIH that they can use until September 30, 2024 - which is money that can be used here in the states or abroad Only $10 million was required to be spent on preventing and reducing exposure of hospital employees, emergency first responders, and other workers at risk of exposure = 1.2% of the total bill allocation : $3.1 billion for the Public Health and Social Services fund, also available until September 2024. This is the largest batch of money in the bill (although there are permissions to move money around so it could be more or less depending upon the whims of the Trump administration) Can be used in the US or abroad Can be used to purchase medical supplies Can be used to pay private companies to develop and then buy vaccines Vaccines developed with this money must be purchased by the Federal government in accordance with existing guidance on fair and reasonable pricing but the HHS Secretary may use existing law to ensure the public can buy them at reasonable prices, he doesn’t have to do so. HHS Secretary is Alex Azar who made his millions as the President of the US division of Eli Lilly - one of the largest multinational drug companies in the world. On his watch, the company tippled the price of insulin so… Without that “shall”, we have no reason to believe that there will be a cap placed on the price gauging. The HHS Secretary can’t do anything that would “delay the development” of vaccines The vaccines can be purchased and stored in the Strategic National Stockpile The law allows our tax money to be used to build or upgrade the facilities of private companies that produce vaccines - so our tax money can be used to build and upgrade buildings for the pharmaceutical companies : Until September 30, 2024, the law allows contractors to be hired for “the provision of personal services”, but they must be contractors as “such individuals may not be deemed employees of the United States”. According to the , the government is normally required to get employees by direct hire and getting services by contract is a way to circumvent civil service laws : Provides $250 million for the State Department’s “Economic Support Fund” and this money will be allowed to be used to “address economic, security, and stabilization requirements” related somehow to coronavirus This money is allowed to be given to "international organizations” : “Coronavirus” means SARS-CoV-2 “or another coronavirus with pandemic potential” : Allows Medicare to pay for Telehealth services during an emergency HR 6201: Families First Coronavirus Response Act outline Document Text: , Congress.gov , Congress.gov Money: $500 million for food stamps $400 million for the commodity assistance program $250 million for “aging and disability services programs” - more than half is for “home delivered nutrition services” : If a school is closed for more than 5 consecutive days under a public health emergency designation, families of children who are eligible for free or discounted school lunches will be able to get benefits valued at least as much as the school meals. The level of benefits will be determined by the Secretary of Agriculture (Sonny Perdue). Benefits might be distributed via the food stamp program - with money on EBT cards. Appropriates unlimited funding and at least $100 million for the territories. : Page 5 appropriates $1 billion or “public health and social services emergency fund” to pay the claims of health care providers for "in vitro diagnostic products” (testing) of COVID-19. Health insurance companies “shall provide coverage” and “shall not impose any cost sharing (including deductibles, copayments” and coinsurance” for tests for the detection of COVID-19 or the administration of those tests “furnished during any portion of the emergency period” (which began on March 13th). This includes in person and Telehealth visits, urgent care center visits, and emergency room visits that result in the ordering or administration of a COVID-19 test. Loopholes: Doesn’t seem to apply to people who got tested before March 13th, because that would be outside the “emergency period” If a doctor doesn’t order a test because there is no test available, the visit would be eligible for copays, deductibles, etc. It can be billed like any ordinary visit. There are also sections that prohibit cost-sharing for people on Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, people in the military, and veterans. : The Federal government will pay 100% of the costs associated with States paying for testing for COVID-19 for uninsured individuals during the emergency period It’s not back dated : Beginning in April 2020 and for each month end the month after the emergency declaration is lifted, will not apply. Benefits can not be denied by States for people who had received food stamps for more than 3 months in the last 3 years while not working more than 20 hours per week, as is usually the case. : Adds the COVID-19 public health emergency to the list of valid reasons that employees may get 12 workweeks of paid family and medical leave. To be eligible, you have to have been working for the company for at least 30 calendar days. The first 10 days are allowed to be unpaid days but the employee is allowed to use any accrued vacation leave, personal leave, or sick days. After 10 days, the employer “shall” provide paid leave for the following 10 weeks. The employee must be paid at least 2/3 of their regular pay, capped at $200/day and $10,000 total. For hourly workers, they will be paid based on the average numbers of hours worked per day for the 6 months prior. Employers required to provide leave are defined as someone with “fewer than 500 employees” instead of “50 or more employees”. Businesses with under 50 employees are exempt if the requirement could destroy the business. There are about 12 million private sector workers who work for companies with fewer than 50 employees and 59 million who work for companies with more than 500 employees - and 6.5 million of them have no paid sick leave. Not effective until April 2 : Requires employers to provide paid sick time if the employee is subject to a mandated quarantine, has to self-quarantine for health reasons, is caring for someone sick with COVID-19, or if the employee’s child’s school or daycare is closed. Health care providers are exempt. Full time workers get 80 hours. Part time workers get paid based on the average amount of time they worked per day in the previous six months. The payments must be for the employees regular rate of pay if they are personally sick, no less than minimum wage, and 2/3rds their regular pay if they are caring for someone else. Payments are capped at $511/day and $5,110 total for sick employees and $200/day and $2,000 total for employees caring for children or sick family members. The paid sick time will not carry over to the following year and can’t be paid if an employee quits. Employers may not require employees to get their shift covered in order to receive their paid sick time. This is valid regardless of how long the employee has been with the company. Employer are not allowed to require employees to use their normally accrued sick time first. Employers can not punish employees for using their sick time. Employers who violate this law are subject to up to $10,000 in fines and up to 6 months in prison. Provision expires on December 31 Applies only to government workers and those working in companies with less than 500 employees. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees can apply for exemptions : Gives States more money for unemployment insurance payments. : Provides liability coverage to the manufacturers and distributors of personal respiratory protective devices subject to emergency use authorizations, including the one issued on March 2, 2020 and used in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency from January 27, 2020 through October 1, 2024. and : Employers will be given a tax credit for 100% of the paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave provided to their employers, up to the limits in this law and : Allows self-employed people to get a tax credit for the days they can’t work. The Secretary of the Treasury will write the regulation, including required documentation to be eligible H.R. 748: CARES Act Summary: Text: Vote Summary: : Unemployment Insurance Provisions : Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Who qualifies: People who would qualify under existing State laws People who self-certify that are able to work except that the person has been diagnosed with COVID-19, someone in their home has been diagnosed with COVID-19, they are caring for someone with COVID-19, has a child whose daycare or school is closed due to COVID-19, can’t get to work because of a COVID-19 quarantine, their work is closed due to COVID-19, or they are self employed. People who do not qualify are people who have the ability to telework with pay or people who are receiving paid sick leave or other paid leave benefits Effective period: Beginning on or after January 27, 2020 and ending on or before December 31, 2020 Limits: No one can get unemployment benefits for more than 39 weeks, but this can be extended by the Secretary of Labor if needed Amounts: It’s the amount determined by your state’s unemployment law plus $600 per week if the state chooses to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor. The Federal government will pay for 100% of the costs of the extra unemployment payments and the administration costs. It’s an unlimited appropriation and it’s valid until July 31, 2020. : Issues a means tested “advanced refund" of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child. You only get the full amount as an adult if you make $75,000 per adult or less. People who make more than $75,000 per adult will have their check amount reduced based on their income up to about $100,000. People who make more than that will get nothing. The payment will be delivered via direct deposit to anyone who has authorized the IRS to do so since January 1, 2018 while everyone else will have to wait for checks. If we accidentally get overpaid, the IRS can’t charge us interest on that payment. The payments will be made for the 2019 tax year if you have already done your taxes for last year. If you haven’t, it’ll be based on 2018. They will send a notification in the mail to us about our payments to our last known address, which will tell us the amount and if it’s going to be delivered via direct deposit or by check. Articles/Documents Article: By Jon Swaine, The Washington Post, April 3, 2020 Article: By Jeanne Whalen, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger , The Washington Post, April 2, 2020 Article: By Matt Stieb, New York Intelligencer, April 2, 2020 Article: By Ron Lieber and Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, April 1, 2020 Article: By Margot Sanger-Katz and Reed Abelson, The New York Times, April 1, 2020 Article: by Ramsey Touchberry, Newsweek, March 30, 2020 Article: By Elisabeth Rosenthal and Emmarie Huetteman, The New York Times, March 27, 2020 Article: By Jennifer Shutt, The New York Times, March 26, 2020 Article: By Jordain Carney, The Hill, March 25, 2020 Article: By Margot Sanger-Katz and Reed Abelson, The New York Times, March 25, 2020 Article: By Erica Werner, Mike DeBonis, Paul Kane and Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, March 25, 2020 Article: by Max Blumenthal, Chicago Reader, March 24, 2020 Article: By Erica Werner, Seung Min Kim, Rachael Bade and Jeff Stein, The Washington Post, March 24, 2020 Article: by Jennifer Ortakaless, Business Insider, March 20, 2020 Article: by Abby Vesoulis, Time, March 18, 2020 Article: by Heather Long, The Washington Post, March 17, 2020 Article: by Joseph Zeballos-Roig, Markets Insider, March 17, 2020 Article: By Julia Hollingsworth, Adam Renton, Steve George, Emma Reynolds, Mike Hayes, Rachel Bowman and Meg Wagner, CNN, March 4, 2020 Additional Resources Technical Guidance: -and-the-virus-that-causes-it) World Health Organization Tables: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey, March 2020 Vote Results: Clerk of House of Representatives, March 4, 2020 Act: U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, January 21, 2020 Booklet: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, May 2017 Sound Clip Sources Transcript: , U.S. Senate, March 25, 2020 Transcript: , U.S. Senate, March 24, 2020 Interview: , CNBC, March 24, 2020 Press Conference: , White House, March 22, 2020 Transcript: President Donald Trump: We're a country not based on nationalizing our business. Call a person over in Venezuela ask them how did the nationalization of their businesses work out? Not too well, the concept of nationalizing our businesses is not a good concept, but I'll tell you why... Presidential Address: , White House, Oval Office, C-SPAN, March 11, 2020 Meeting: , United States House of Representatives Rules Committee, March 11, 2020 Transcript: 15:00 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): I understand, as I'm sure all members do, the gravity of the situation and the extraordinary times we're in. But I also must make clear that we learned a couple of days ago, through the press, mind you, that the Speaker's office was beginning to work on a bill. Just a few short hours ago, members of the Majority Party apparently received a closed door briefing on the contents of this package, and already was not given that same consideration. Text wasn't made available until 11pm. And now the Rules Committee is meeting to consider a rule that will provide for consideration on the floor tomorrow. 24:30 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): Whether you're in the Medicare program, Medicaid program, whether you're in the Health Service or you're getting your insurance privately or you have no insurance, we're trying to make sure that you can go and have the test done without having any cost. Whether it's deductible, a copay or just outright, not having to pay for it if you have no insurance. 25:30 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): But I did want to mention two things and that is for people who don't have insurance. There's flexibility in this. So the states can basically cover them through Medicaid or have them enrolled in Medicaid without having to meet the income requirements that we have now, and they would be tested and that would be paid for under Medicaid solely for the testing for the virus. 25:45 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): And then we also have a pot of money that goes to the National Disaster Medical System to pay for the uninsured. And so essentially, if someone goes to a community health center, for example, and they have no insurance, it would be covered with that as an example. 26:00 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): For those states right now, as you know, depending on the state and the level of poverty in the state, have to pay at a minimum 50%, or the federal government pays at a minimum 50 percent of Medicaid costs, and that's matched by the states, depending on the state. And so the F map provision increases that federal match by 8%. And this is for Medicaid in general. In other words, anticipating that a lot more people will have to be covered by the - go on to the Medicaid rolls. 27:00 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): The masks because they've been a lot of concern about that. And whether or not masks for healthcare providers would be available. As you know, the companies have asked for liability exemption. And that has been the case in the past when we've had other public health emergencies, like I don't know, all or some of the other things that we've had for vaccines and other things. So we do accept and extend that for a limited purpose. So if the mask is is basically approved by the federal government, and during the time of this emergency, as declared by the President under the prep act, there would be the liability exemption for for those masks so that we make sure that they're out there, and they're distributed. 28:00 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): Like my ranking member on the Rules Committee, I do have some concerns about the process about how this came together. I just saw the text for the very first time when I walked in here I had a chance to read the first four lines on the first page. Look forward to reading more between now and eight o'clock in the morning. 31:00 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): It's important that the vaccine be established as safe. I am old enough to remember, an episode of the swine flu during the Ford administration, where a vaccine was hastily developed, and its administration was mandated across the country, and some serious complications occurred. And we certainly don't want to repeat that. So once the vaccine has been established to safe Dr. Fauci has assured us that he will proceed with all dispatch to make sure it is effective, and it will be brought online as as quickly as possible. And I think we have provided the funding to allow them to do that. 36:00 Rep. Bobby Scott (VA): Comments have been made about how quickly this has been put together, we have an emergency and I don't think we have much choice. I'd like to spend a lot more time on the legislation but the more time we take putting it together and getting it out there, people will die. And so we've done it as quickly as we possibly can and everybody would like more time. 41:00 Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): When I heard about this bill today I remembered something that well known democrat said, 'Never let a crisis go to waste.' But then I also remember the phrase 'act in haste and repent at leisure.' 57:00 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): It'd be a shame for us to leave, honestly, without doing something together for the American people. I think they're looking for that almost more than the individual items in the package. They really want to see us, in a time of crisis, put aside differences, find common solutions, common ground that we can agree on, and work together for their interest. And if we managed to do that, I think that'll not only be good in a time of crisis, I think it'll hopefully reinstill some confidence in the process and the institutions that we all are very proud to be part of, and remind Americans that, hey, we're in our very, very best when we're at a time of crisis. We really are. 1:04:00 Rep. Norma Torres (CA): Last week, at a meeting with the Export Import Bank chair Kimberly Reed stated that the US Commerce Department is still promoting the sales of critical supplies that the American people need. What are those critical supplies? masks, masks, hand sanitizer? How can you know what happened to America first? We need those critical supplies here. So part of what we need to do is direct these uninformed officials that the left hand needs to talk to the right hand. That may be the Commerce Department should be consulting with this new Coronavirus Committee that has been set up by the President. Those are the things that we cannot leave undone when we leave here this week. 1:10:00 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): How many hearings have we had on the bill that we've had before us tonight? None. Zero. I mean, that's that is a problem. And I my Republican colleagues have complained about it, but I, as a Democrat want to complain about it too. Because there's no question we have an emergency. Part of our emergency is we want to try to get out of here by tomorrow afternoon, or this afternoon. Okay, I mean, we're setting our own deadline here. Isn't that true? Am I mistaken on that? Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): Well, look, I'm a big advocate for regular order. We don't always fall well. This is about as far for you're not gonna have you can't have regular order when you have an emergency. I mean, you know, it would for us to go. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. But I guess I would say is okay. Why aren't we doing this? You know, Friday. Today's what? Thursday? Now that we're - 12:15 Thursday. Okay, so I just want to get that out of the way. 1:14:00 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): Well, these things are emergencies. Clearly the testing. But I thought part of the testing was what we did last week. Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): The testing is essentially the authorizing language. In other words, it's not the it's not the spending. What we're saying is that, you know, whether it's federal programs like Medicaid or Indian Health Service, or it's private insurance or for the uninsured, we want to make sure that everybody can have the test and not have to pay for it not have to have any copay, deductible, or out of pocket expenses. That's what we're doing with that. Rep. Bobby Scott (VA): And some of this ought to be done anyway. I mean, if you're taking a vaccine that should be under prevention, and should be on the most plans, no copay and deductible. So it's not it's not a new idea. Rep. Terri Sewell (AL): And what we did last week was to authorize, give the money to states to actually purchase and have these kits on hand. So what we're doing now is for individuals to make sure that the individual who's trying to see testing actually it's free of charge. Whether have private insurance, government insurance or no insurance, that the testing would be free. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): All right, so would have last week's bill would that have covered the protective gear for the health providers and the tents and the ventilators that we try to separate? Rep. Terri Sewell (AL): Yes. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO): Okay. Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): About the ventilators. And that's a very good question. We, we can understand that perhaps, on the testing, there were things could have been done better. Can you anticipate what the next part of this crisis will be? If you look at the experience in some of the other countries, the next part of this crisis is going to be an overwhelming load of patients in acute respiratory failure, presenting to hospitals, needing ICU beds needing ventilators. I don't know if we have the capacity. I don't know if anyone has done a survey of unused military facilities that might be available. I don't know if as part of the Ready Reserve, some One has looked into it. Again, that would be one of the questions I would have asked had we had a hearing. But I do think if we want to think over the horizon, we do need to think about the significant number of patients who could be in acute respiratory failure and the stories, and I realize you're reading them online, I'm reading them online. I don't know if they're true. But the crowd out of people with other medical conditions who show up at the hospitals who can't be seen, acute appendicitis now can be a fatal event, because everyone else is tied up taking care of people who are dying of pneumonia. So it is something we need to think about. I don't know if we've addressed it in this bill. I don't think we addressed it in the appropriation last week. 1:30:00 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): People have spoken about testing at no cost to the patient. I think that's fine. I think it's a great idea. Do remember someone has to administer the test. There has to be overhead paid for the personnel to be in the office to administer the test. Someone has to pay the liability insurance if the test is reported incorrectly, and someone is going to have to report the test to a patient, that tested is positive, someone's got to do the follow through because now a doctor patient relationship has been established. So we do need to think about that. I'm not objecting to what has been described here tonight, but it just it seems to me that it's incomplete. 1:31:00 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): And could I say I'm not going to suggest that that everything that the Dr. Burgess mentioned is covered. But it's not just the test. It's also the provider visit, you know the visit of the patient that provided this cover and also without charge, but...I'm not saying that covers everything, but a lot of the things that he mentioned, it's not just the test. It's also the actual visit and the provider. Video: , U.S. House of Representatives, April 20, 2013 Video: , U.S. Senate, April 11, 2013 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD211: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

21 mars 2020 | 78 min

Coronavirus. A lot of people are scared - and money is being made off of our fear. In this episode, let's take a calm look at the facts presented under oath by health professionals in Congress and in official press conferences. What is happening? How does this virus work? How is it transmitted? Why are we all being told to stay home? By the end of this episode, you will have those answers and (hopefully) be better prepared to handle the bad news that’s soon to come. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills , Congress.gov Articles/Documents Article: by DeAnna Jones, Oprah Magazine, March 17, 2020 Article: by Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, March 16, 2020 Article: by Robert P. Baird, The New Yorker, March 16, 2020 Article: by Sandra Fulton, Common Dreams, March 16, 2020 Article: by Jon Greenberg and Victoria Knight, Politifact, March 16, 2020 Article: By Nomi Prins, Asia Times, March 14, 2020 Article: , Oscar, March 13, 2020 Article: by Mary Vanac, Modern Healthcare, March 9, 2020 Article: by Erika Edwards, NBC News, February 14, 2020 Additional Resources Vote Results: , March 14, 2020 Vote Results: , March 12, 2020 State Advisory: , Disease Outbreak Control Division, State of Hawaii, Department of Health Disease Outbreak Control Division Event Update , SXSW Homepage Sound Clip Sources Interview: by William Feuer, CNBC, March 19, 2020 Interview: , MSNBC, March 18, 2020 Interview: , CNBC, March 18, 2020 Briefing: , White House, March 18, 2020 Speakers Deborah Birx: White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator ** Was the AIDS Ambassador during the Obama administration Transcript: 35:00 Deborah Birx:So the test kits that we put out last week through the approval, the rapid movement of that meeting that President Trump called less than two weeks ago, that has resulted in bringing our private sector to the table, because the tests and the platform that was out there could only run between four and 12 tests per platform per day. We've now moved into platforms that can run basically 10's of thousands of tests per day. So the reason I'm grateful for your question, because it allows me to point out that of course then there was a backlog. There were individuals who had been tested, who hadn't had their specimen run because of the slow throughput. It's now in a high speed platform. So we will see the number of people diagnosed dramatically increase over the next four to five days. I know some of you will use that to raise an alarm that we are worse than Italy because of our slope of our curve. To every American out there, it will be five to six days worth of tests being run in 24 to 48 hours, so our curves will not be stable until sometime next week. 36:25 The reason I talked about Thermo Fisher yesterday is because their platform is in 2,000 laboratories. They're the ones that are putting out the million tests this week that will solve the issue that Atlanta and others have brought up. 41:30 When you look at China and South Korea data and you look what China and South Korea did, you can see that their curves are not only blunted outside of Wu Han. So the Chinese areas outside of Wu Han blunted curve and South Korea blunted curve, if you look at their curve today, there are ready on the far end of their epidemic curve. Of course, none of those countries are fully back to work. And so that's what we worry about, too. 42:30 Don't expose yourself to surfaces that could have had the virus on it, for which on hard surfaces, I know we had the cardboard issue about shipping, hard surfaces not shown, in fabric as much or in cardboard, but hard surface transmission. Video: , Cuomo Prime Time, CNN, March 17, 2020 Video: , NBC Nightly News, NBC, March 17, 2020 Briefing: , White House, March 17, 2020 Transcript: 58:50 Anthony Fauci: Now you could see the virus going up and up and your effect your work, what you're trying to do, may actually be having an effect, but you may not see it because it'll still be going up. And as you're trying to implement your interference with the virus, you may not realize that you're actually interfering and you'll say, wait a minute, it's still going up. What's going on? You've done nothing. But you don't know whether it would do this versus that. So the answer to your question, it probably would be several weeks and maybe longer before we know whether we're having an effect. It may be at the end of the day, we'll see a curve that would have been way way up. But I wouldn't like put us to task every few days. Well, wait a minute, it's going up. Is it working or not? That would be really misleading if we do that. News Conference: , World Health Organization, March 16, 2020 Speakers: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Director General of the World Health Organization Transcript: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: But the most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate. You cannot fight a fire blindfolded and we cannot stop this pandemic if we don't know who is infected. We have a simple message for all countries. Test, test, test. Test every suspected case, and if they test positive, isolate them and find out who they have been in close contact with up to two days before they developed symptoms and test those people too. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: WHO advises that all confirmed cases, even mild cases, should it be isolated in health facilities to prevent transmission and provide adequate care. But we recognize that many countries have already exceeded their capacity to care for mild cases in dedicated health facilities. In that situation, countries should prioritize all their patients and those with underlying conditions. Some countries have expanded their capacity by using stadiums and gyms to care for mild cases with C-Vid and critical cases cared for in hospitals. Another option is for patients with mild disease to be isolated and cared for at home. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Both the patient and their caregivers should wear a medical mask when they are together in the same room. The patient should sleep in a separate bedroom, two others, and use a different bathroom. Assign one person to care for the patient. Ideally, someone who is in good health and has no underlying conditions. The caregiver should wash their hands after any contact with their patient or their immediate environment. People infected with Covid-19 can still infect others after they stop feeling sick. So this measures should continue for at least two weeks after symptoms disappear. Visitors should not be allowed until the end of this period. Interview: , CNN, March 15, 2020 Video: , Fox News, Mach 13, 2020 Hearing: , United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform, March 12, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Anthony Fauci: Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Robert Redfield: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Kadlec: Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 17:30 Robert Kadlec: You're correct that there is a great demand for personal protective equipment, particularly respirators, N-95 respirators. There we have a limited supply in our Strategic National Stockpile. Annually, about 350 million respirators are used. Only a small percentage of that is used by the healthcare industry about 35 million. And we believe that the demand for that could be several hundred million to up to a billion in a six month period. So it's a very high demand item. There has been a strategy to basically, and CDC has provided guidance on reuse, how can we use them longer. We've got the manufacturers and how they can surge more and many of them are doing that. And domestically even though some of their sources for product, finished product is from overseas like China. And then the third thing is is what can we do to basically use masks that haven't been used for the medical area, non medical N-95s could be used in that fashion. And FDA is basically certified through an Emergency Use Authorization that N-95s respirators used in manufacturing and in mining and in construction could be used in healthcare settings. They are very similar but not the same, but could be used that way. And the only thing that's keeping a lot of manufacturers from selling those masks to the broader healthcare population is because of liability provisions or lack of liability protections. There is the Public Readiness Emergency Preparedness Act that was passed in 2005. That basically indemnifies manufacturers, distributors and users of these masks, or pardon me, of users of products that are defined as a device or as a covered countermeasure. When we saw - I happened to be on the staff that did that legislation in 2005. We did not consider a situation like this today. We thought about vaccines. We thought about therapeutics, we never thought about respirators of being our first and only line of defense for healthcare workers. So we think that's a very important capacity and capability to include language or modify the Prep Act to include language, to include respiratory protective devices for that purpose, and that's a significant critical pass now item. 20:25 Robert Redfield: There's also clinical medicine, the practice of clinical medicine, the private sector, that actually tries to provide diagnostics so we can diagnose diabetes or anemia, lots of different diseases. And it's really the engagement of the private sector to get these tests into clinical medicine, which is it's a partnership between the private sector. CDC usually develops the test first, gets it out into the health departments to do surveillance. And then the private sector comes in to provide the clinical tools we need to basically diagnose patients, not the surveillance of the community. 23:53 Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): We need to have someone in charge of making sure that as many people as possible across this country have access to getting tested as soon as possible. Who is that person? Is it you? Is it the vice president? Can you give us the name of who can guarantee that anyone, but especially healthcare workers who need to be tested can be. Robert Redfield: As I tried to explain to Congressman Green, from the CDC perspective... Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): Okay, I'm asking for a name. Who is in charge of making sure that people who need to get tested, who are indicated to be tested can get a test? Who? Robert Redfield: Yeah, I was trying to say that the responsibility that I have at CDC is make sure all the public health labs have it and they can make the judgment on how they want to use it. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): But they're referencing people who have been advised to be tested to you and they've been turned down. So is it you? Robert Redfield: As I said, I'm going to look into the specifics of that. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): So basically, you're saying - I'm claiming my time - basically, you seem to be saying because you can't name any one specifically, that there's no one specifically in charge that we can count on to make sure that people who need to be tested healthcare workers or anyone else, there's not one person that can ensure that these tests can be administered yes or no. Anthony Fauci: My colleague is looking at me to answer. Here we go. Okay. All right. So the system does not, is not really geared to what we need right now. What you are asking for, that is a failing. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): A failing. Anthony Fauci: Yeah, it is a failing. Let's admit it. The fact is the way the system was set up, is that the public health component, that doctor that Dr. Redfield was talking about was a system where you put it out there in the public and a physician asks for it and you get it. The idea of anybody getting it easily, the way people in other countries are doing it, we're not set up for that. Do I think we should be? Yes, but we're not. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (FL): Okay. That's really disturbing and I appreciate the information. 30:25 Rep. Ralph Norman (SC): I just met with a company, a Fortune 500 company, who is looking at testing their employees as they come in the door. And yet they're concern was one, frivolous lawsuits, class action suits by trial lawyers, HIPAA violations, health violations. You know, you just can't take temperatures of people without our type getting into all types of issues. The question I was asked by this employer do I give do I take the risk of when you walk in that door, no symptoms, you just see what, whether it's a temporary or whether it's asking questions, they're petrified of the outcome if they do that. They're also petrified of somebody having the virus when they walk in the door and then being held liable if they in fact, and this company has 500 employees that do shifts, work in three shifts. 32:00 Anthony Fauci: There are two types of situations. Dr. Redfield described. One, which was the classic tried and true CDC based situation where it's based on the doctor-patient interaction. Where a doctor, as a patient who wants to get tested for cause they're sick, they've been exposed or what have you. That works well. The system right now as it exists, of doing a much broader capability of determining what the penetrance is in society right now, is not operational at all for us. And what the CDC is doing now is that they're taking various cities, they started with six, and then they're going to expand it, where they're not going to wait for somebody to ask to get tested. They're going to get people who walk into an emergency room or a clinic with an influenza like illness and test them for coronavirus. You You do that on a broader scale throughout the country, you'll start to get a feel for what the penetrance is. And that's a different process. Unfortunately, our system from the beginning was not set up to do that. And that's the reason why we're not able to answer the broader questions of how many people in the country are infected right now. We hope to get there reasonably soon. But we're not there now. 36:30 Anthony Fauci: In the spirit of staying ahead of the game, right now, we should be doing things that separate us as best as possible from people who might be infected. And there are ways to do that. You know, we use the word social distancing, but most people don't know what that means, for example, crowds. We just heard that they're going to limit access to the capital. That's a really, really good idea to do. I know you like to meet and press the flesh with your constituencies. I think not now, I think you need I need I think you need to really cool it for a while because we should we should be practicing mitigation, even in areas that don't have a dramatic increase. I mean, everyone looks to Washington State. They look to California, they're having an obvious serious problem. But their problem now may be our problem tomorrow. 40:30 Anthony Fauci: Yeah, I would put the social distancing and other issues of preventing infection ahead of the testing but the testing is very important. 43:30 Anthony Fauci: When we were looking at the pure public health aspect of it, we found that 70% of the new infections were coming from the - new infections in the world, were coming from Europe, that cluster of countries. And of the 35 states 30 out of 35 of them, who were more recently getting infections, were getting them from them. That was predominantly from Italy, and from France and from Germany. So when the discussion was, why don't we just start off and say, banned from Italy, we were told by the State Department and others that in fact, you really can't do that because it's sort of like one country, the whole European thing. And the reason I believe that that the UK was left out, was because there is a difference between ease of translate of transportation between the European countries. Rep. Peter Welch (VT): Okay, that's Brexit. Thank you. 47:40 Rep. Chip Roy (TX): Last night, I spoke on the phone with Dr. Shuren at the FDA and got some updates on some of the testing information because I've wanted to talk to somebody at the FDA. And my understanding and response from them. And he's not here to testify. So I want to validate this was that he talked about upwards of 2 million tests. Those aren't individual test kits, but the ability to test 2 million times. We're coming to availability this week, 3 million more in the next week, and that we've got a rather large and robust testing ability coming to market shortly that we've got private enterprises producing these tests. We've got universities, state public officials that have the ability to test and that we are now getting to the place of scalability to ramp up and have a fairly sizable large amount of testing ability in our robust federal system. Would you agree Dr. Redfield that that is the trajectory of where we're headed. Robert Redfield: Since March 2, there's been, I've been told over 4 million tests now have entered the market. But what I want to say the test isn't whole answer. You need people to do the test laboratory equipment to do the test. You need some of the reagents that actually now are in short supply. To prepare the test. You need the swabs to take the test so we're working very hard with the FDA to make sure all these different pieces, you know right now the actual test to do this coronavirus test. I think we have the test in the marketplace. The question is how to how to actually operationalize them and I think that's what Tony and I are saying is the big challenge right now. 53:30 Robert Redfield: We need to use our efforts right now to really continue to try to contain this outbreak with the cases we have and let the public health system focus on that around those clusters, do aggressive mitigation. But if we continue to have individuals coming in to seed new communities, all through the country, it will be very hard for us to get control of this. 55:45 Robert Redfield: If someone's in self-isolation or self-quarantine at home. They're being monitored for symptoms, if they, if they do become symptomatic, they get a comprehensive medical evaluation and then obviously, either returned to home isolation if it's that that's the medical appropriate decision for them, that it's just a sore throat. Or if they look like they need medical attention, they're going to get hospitalized and managed in isolation. Rep. Robin Kelly (IL):And then how those costs covered for a private hospital, the CDC cover their out of pocket cost or how does that work? Robert Redfield: Well, the department has the authority to reimburse those. Okay, CDC has the authority The department has authority, we're working now to determine the best way to accomplish that. 58:40 Robert Redfield: We really are in a mode that this is time for big events like March Madness, big events like these big sports arena things to take a pause for the next four to six to eight weeks while we see what happens with this outbreak in this nation. 1:17:30 Rep. Mark Green (TN): On the South Korean test, we've had a lot of comparisons of how they've done testing much faster than us. I have a letter from the FDA that says the South Korean test, I want to make sure this is on the record, the South Korean test is not adequate. A vendor wanted to purchase it and sell it and use it in the United States. And the FDA said I'm sorry, we will not even do an Emergency Use Authorization for that test. So I have that letter if anybody wants to see it. 1:21:00 Anthony Fauci: So, the Chinese didn't have to send us the virus. They just published the sequence on a public database. We knew the gene that would code for the protein that we wanted to make a vaccine. So all we did was pulled the information right out of the database. We made it synthesize that very easily, overnight, stuck it in to a platform and started making it. And we said at that point that it would take, I would say, two to three months to have it in the first human. I think we're going to do better than that. And I would hope within a few weeks, we may be able to make an announcement to you all, that we've given the first shot to the first person. Having said that, I want to make sure people understand that I say that over and over and over again. That doesn't mean we have a vaccine that we could use. I mean, it's record time to get a tested. It's going to take a year to a year and a half to really know if it works. 1:22:57 Rep. Rashida Talib (MI): You know, earlier this week Congress's attending fish's physician told the Senate that he expects between 70 to 150 million people to eventually contract the coronavirus in the United States. Dr. Croce is is he wrong? Anthony Fauci: Yeah, I think we really need to be careful with those kinds of predictions because that's based on a model. So what the model is, all models are as good as the assumptions that you put into the model. So if you say that this is going to be the likely percent of individuals. Rep. Rashida Talib (MI): So what can we do to define it, is it testing? Anthony Fauci: No, no, it's unpredictable. So testing now is not going to tell you how many cases you're going to have. What will tell you what you're going to have will be how you respond to it with containment and mitigation. 1:24:00 Anthony Fauci: When people do model they say, 'This is the lower level. This is the higher level.' And what the press picks up is the higher level and they'll say you could have as many as... 1:24:15 Anthony Fauci: Remember, the model during the Ebola outbreak said you could have as many as a million. We didn't have a million. 1:28:35 Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Anthony Fauci: Dr. Kadlec, for someone without insurance, do you know the out of pocket cost of a complete blood count test? Robert Kadlec: No, ma'am not not immediately. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Do you have a ballpark? Robert Kadlec: No, with a copay, no ma'am? Rep. Katie Porter (CA): No, the out of pocket, just the typical cost. Robert Kadlec: I do not ma'am. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Okay. A CBC typically costs about $36. What about the out of pocket costs for a complete metabolic panel? Robert Kadlec: That would have to pass on that as well. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): You have any idea? You wanna take a ballpark? Robert Kadlec: I would say $75. Okay. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): 58. Robert Kadlec: Getting closer. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): How about flu A, the flu A test? Robert Kadlec: Again, I'll take a guess at about maybe 50? Rep. Katie Porter (CA): 43. Flu... This is like the prices right? Flu B? Robert Kadlec: Too high again, I would probably say 44. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): That's good. How about the cost of an ER visit for someone identified as high severity and threat? Robert Kadlec: I'm sorry, ma'am, what was the question here? Rep. Katie Porter (CA): How about the cost of an ER visit for somebody identified as having high severity or high threat? Robert Kadlec: That's probably about three to $5,000. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Okay, that is $1,151. It this all totals up to $1,331. That's assuming they aren't kept in isolation. Isolation can add up for one family already $4,000, and fear of these costs are going to keep people from being tested, from getting the care they need and from keeping their community safe. We live in a world where 40% of Americans cannot even afford a $400 unexpected expense. We live in a world where 33% of Americans put off medical treatment last year. And we have a $1,331 expense, conservatively, just for testing for the coronavirus. Doctor Dr. Redfield, do you want to know who has the corona virus and who doesn't? Robert Redfield: Yes. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Not just rich people, but everybody who might have a virus. Robert Redfield: All of America. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Dr. Redfield, are you familiar with 42 CFR 71.3130? Excuse me? 42 CFR 71.30. The Code of Federal Regulations that applies to the CDC. 42 CFR 71.30. Robert Redfield: I think if you could frame that what it talks about that would help ma'am that would really... Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Dr. Redfield I'm I'm pretty well known as a questioner on the Hill from for not tipping my hand. I literally communicated to your office last night and received confirmation that I was going to be asking you about 42.7, 42 CFR 71.30. This provides 'Director may authorize payment for the care and treatment of individuals subject to medical exam quarantine isolation and conditional release.' Robert Redfield: That I know about. And my office did tell me that I just didn't know the numbers, ma'am, Congressman. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Great. So you're familiar, Dr. Redfield, will you commit to the CDC right now, using that existing authority to pay for diagnostic testing free to every American regardless of insurance? Robert Redfield: Well, I can say that we're gonna do everything to make sure everybody can get the care they need. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): No, not good enough. We're claiming my time. Dr. Redfield, you have the existing authority. Will you commit right now to using the authority that you have, vested in you, under law, that provides a public health emergency for testing, treatment, exam, isolation, without cost, yes or no? Robert Redfield: What I'm going to say is I'm going to review it in detail with... Rep. Katie Porter (CA): No, I'm claiming my time, Doctor Redfield respectfully. I wrote you this letter along with my colleagues, Rosa Delora. And Lauren Underwood, Congressman Underwood and Congressman Delora. We wrote you this letter one week ago. We quoted that existing authority to you and we laid out this problem. We asked for a response yesterday, the deadline and the time for delay has passed. Will you commit to invoking your existing authority under 42 CFR 71.30 to provide for coronavirus testing for every American regardless of insurance coverage. Robert Redfield: What I was trying to say is that CDC is working with HHS now to see how we operationalize that. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Dr. Redfield. I hope that that answer weighs heavily on you, because it is going to weigh very heavily on me and on every American family. Robert Redfield: Our intent is to make sure every American gets the care and treatment they need at this time with this major epidemic and I'm currently working with HHS to see how to best operationalize it. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Dr. Redfield, you don't need to do any work to operationalize. You need to make a commitment to the American people. So they come in to get tested. You could operationalize the payment structure tomorrow. Robert Redfield: I think you're an excellent questioner. So my answer is yes. Rep. Katie Porter (CA): Excellent. Everybody in America hear that. You are eligible to go get tested for Coronavirus and have that covered regardless of insurance. Please, if you believe you have the illness, follow precautions, call first. Do everything the CDC and - Dr. Fauci, God bless you for guiding Americans in this time. But do not let a lack of insurance worsen this crisis. 1:42:30 Rep. John Sarbanes (MD): If somebody got the virus, three, four weeks ago, just thought they had the flu or a bad cold or something recovered from it. They're now essentially immune from getting the virus again. Is that correct? Anthony Fauci: We haven't formally proved it, but it is strongly likely that that's the case. 1:43:00 Anthony Fauci: If you do an antibody test, if you wait weeks and months after you've recovered, the antibody tests will tell you whether that person was formerly infected with Corona virus. 1:43:50 Anthony Fauci: So let's say I get infected. And whether I get sick or not, I clear the infection from my body. I do two tests 24 hours apart, which is the standard to say, I'm no longer infected. A month and a half from now you do an antibody test, and that test is positive. I am not transmitting to anybody, because my body has already cleared the virus. So even though my antibody test says you were infected a month or two ago, right now, if there's no virus in me, I am not going to be able to transmit it to anyone. 1:45:30 Rep. Jimmy Gomez (CA): Will a travel ban like this have significant impact on reducing the community spread of the coronavirus. That is cases that are already in the United States. Anthony Fauci: Yes, that is the the answer is a firm yes. And that was the reason, the rationale, the public health rationale why that recommendation was made. Because if you look at the numbers, it's very clear that 70% of the new infections in the world are coming from that region from Europe, seeding other countries. First thing, second thing of the 35 or more states that have infections, 30 of them now and most recently have gotten them from a travel related case in that region. So it was pretty compelling that we needed to turn off the source from that region. 2:02:10 Robert Redfield: CDC did manufacture the original CDC tests that we used - the CDC. And we also manufactured the initial test we sent out to the states, it's an IDT manufactured kits after that. Hearing: , United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform, March 11, 2020 Witnesses: Dr. Anthony Fauci: Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health Dr. Robert Redfield: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dr. Robert Kadlec: Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services Transcript: 28:20 Anthony Fauci: In the next, I would say four weeks or so, we will go into what is called a phase one clinical trial to determine if one of the candidates, and there are more than one candidate. There are probably at least 10 or so that are at various stages of development. The one that we've been talking about is one that involves a platform called messenger RNA, but it really serves as a prototype for other types of vaccines that are simultaneously being developed. Getting it into phase one in a matter of months is the quickest that anyone has ever done, literally in the history of vaccinology. However, the process of developing a vaccine is one that is not that quick. So we go into phase one, it'll take about three months to determine if it's safe. That'll bring us three or four months down the pike. And then you go into an important phase called phase two to determine if it works. Since this is a vaccine, you don't want to give it to normal healthy people with the possibility that A, it will hurt them and B, that it will not work. So the phase of determining if it works is critical. That will take at least another eight months or so. So when you've heard me say we would not have a vaccine that would even be ready to start a deploy for a year to a year and a half, that is the timeframe. Now, anyone who thinks they're going to go more quickly than that, I believe will be cutting corners. That would be detrimental. 30:10 Anthony Fauci: The timeline for therapy is a little bit different. The reason it is different is that you're giving this candidate therapy to someone who was already ill. So the idea of risks and how quickly you determine if and when it works is much more quickly than giving a lot of vaccine to normal people and determine if you protect them. There are a couple of candidates that are now already in clinical trial, some of them in China and some of them right here in the United States, particularly in some of the trials that'd be done in some of our clinical centers, including the University of Nebraska. It is likely that we will know if they work in the next several months. 48:22 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Is that is the worst yet to come, Dr. Fauci? Anthony Fauci: Yes, it is. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Can you elaborate? Anthony Fauci: Well, whenever you have an outbreak that you can start seeing community spread, which means by definition that you don't know what the index cases and the way you can approach it is by contact tracing. When you have enough of that, then it becomes a situation where you're not going to be able to effectively and efficiently contain it. Whenever you look at the history of outbreaks, what you see now in an uncontained way, and although we are containing it in some respects, we keep getting people coming in from the country that are travel related. We've seen that in many of the States that are now involved. And then when you get community spread, it makes the challenge much greater. So I can say we will see more cases and things will get worse than they are right now. How much worse we'll get will depend on our ability to do two things, to contain the influx of people who are infected, coming from the outside and the ability to contain and mitigate within our own country. 49:45 Anthony Fauci: Looking forward right now, as commercial entities get involved in making a large amount of tests getting variable. When you do two aspects of testing, one, a person comes in to a physician and ask for a test because they have symptoms or a circumstance which suggests they may be infected. The other way to do testing is to do surveillance where you go out into the community and not wait for someone to come in and ask for a task, but you actively pro get proactively get a test. We are pushing for that and as Bob will, Dr. Redfield will tell you that the CDC has already started that in six Sentinel cities and we'll expand that in many more cities. But you're absolutely correct. We need to know how many people to the best of our ability are infected. As we say, under the radar screen. 51:20 Robert Redfield: CDCs role in this was we very rapidly, within almost seven to 10 days, developed a test from an unknown pathogen once we had the sequence. And we did that because we wanted to get eyes on at CDC so the health departments across this nation can send samples to us and we would test them. Secondly, we rapidly tried to expand that and scale it up with a contractor so each public health lab in this country would have that test. During that process of quality control, we found out one of the reagents wasn't working appropriately and we had to modify that with the FDA. That took several weeks to get that completed, but the test was always available in Atlanta if you sent the sample to us. So there never was a time when a health department could not get a test. They had to send it to Atlanta. Now our health departments have 75,000 tests. Most health departments now over 75 health departments have the test, but the other side. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): How many tests are we planning to produce in the United States? Robert Redfield: Well from a public health point of view, we've put out 75,000 the other side, as Dr. Fauci said, which is really not what CDC does traditionally, is to get the medical private sector to have testing for patients. And when the Vice President brought all the testing companies to the White House last week, we got enormous cooperation for the mall to work together. And as we sit here today, Quest and Lab Corp are now offering this test in their doctor's offices throughout this country. But it's not for an individual just to take a test. They need to go see a healthcare professional having an assessment determine whether a test is indicated and then get that test. 1:08:00 Robert Redfield: The other side of the mission is the clinical mission. And I think that's the concern of most American citizens. How do I get evaluated? And again, that really has been worked through the private sector. It wasn't really the public health lead for CDC to get a laboratory test, but I will say that the test we did develop, we published and let everybody use it. They could redevelop it. There was regulatory release. So any CLIA certified lab, according to the FDA was given relief. They could develop the test just like we did and they could use it. And some universities have done that. We also were, was released to IDT, the manufacturer that made our tests for public health purposes. They were given the regulatory relief to actually make that test and sell it to hospitals. And that's the 1 million, 3 million tests that people referred to that are rolling out for that side. 1:17:00 Robert Kadlec: I'm looking at particularly the things that we need for this outbreak right now and I just want to highlight the issues around personal protective equipment. Much of it is sourced from overseas, some of it is domestically manufactured and yes, we could have spot shortages. We're working with different companies in different sectors to see, to enhance both their increased capacity here domestically, as well as obtaining supplies overseas, from overseas unaffected areas to meet the demand. The most important demand is with healthcare workers, ensuring they have the respiratory protection and barrier protection so they can see and treat patients without the risk of getting infected and being lost to their, to the cause. 1:29:55 Robert Redfield: Yeah. So for the coronavirus right now, for example, in Italy, the average age of death is over the age of 80. Most of the deaths that we've seen are over the age of 70. 1:36:20 Robert Redfield: The CDC developed this test for the United States public health system. We did not develop this test for all of clinical medicine. The test for clinical medicine we count on the private sector to work together with the FDA to bring those tests to bear. 1:40:25 Anthony Fauci: At least from my experience, social media can often be as detrimental as it is helpful. That's the reason why, sir. I think the first question that you asked would be the one to go to the source of the data CDC, and I'm not CDC, but I'm saying CDC is a data-driven organization, and if you really want the facts and the data, I would just go to cdc.gov. 1:43:15 Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): I want to quickly clear up a few things that have been said over the course of this process. One was by the President, in early February when he said, 'it looks like by April, you know, in theory when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.' Is there any scientific reason to believe that? Anthony Fauci: The basis for any surmising that that might happen is based on what we see every year with influenza, which actually as you get to March and April and May, it actually goes way down and other non novel coronavirus but common cold coronaviruses often do that. So for someone to at least consider that that might happen is reasonable, but, underline, but we do not know what this virus is going to do. We would hope that as we get to warmer weather, it would go down, but we can't proceed under that assumption. We've got to assume that it's going to get worse and worse and worse. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Okay. 1:47:30 Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): I hear from constituents who are having flu like symptoms, they want to know what should they do, what should they do? Robert Redfield: Well, it's Dr. Fauci said, the first thing I would do is to tell them to contact their healthcare provider or their emergency room and tell them they're concerned. They may have Coronavirus infection and then follow their instructions to where to get the test right. And then proceed with getting the appropriate clinical evaluation. Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD): Okay. So they should call someone before they go in anywhere. Robert Redfield: Well, we'd like to do that because if you really think you're infected, we're trying to avoid someone to walk into a 200 person, a hundred person emergency room. First is just to call in advance, and then they'll arrange exactly how they're going to get to test, how they're going to see the patient. They're going to be prepared when that patient comes to the emergency room, that they're going to be able to isolate them, get them tested, get them properly evaluated. 1:57:20 Rep. Harley Rouda (CA): Without test kits, is it possible that those that have been susceptible to influenza might have been miscategorized as to what they actually had? That it's quite possible that they actually had a covid-19. Robert Redfield: The standard practice is the first thing you do is test for influenza. So if they had influenza, they would be positive. Rep. Harley Rouda (CA): But only if they were tested. So if they weren't tested, we don't know what they had. Robert Redfield: Correct. Rep. Harley Rouda (CA): Okay. And if somebody dies from influence, are we doing post-mortem testing to see whether it was influenza or whether it was Covid-19? Robert Redfield: There is a surveillance system of death from pneumonia that the CDC has. It's not in every city, every state, every hospital. Rep. Harley Rouda (CA): So we could have people in the United States dying for what appears to be influenza, when in fact it could be the Coronavirus or Covid-19. Robert Redfield: Some cases have been actually diagnosed that way in the United States today. 2:00:10 Anthony Fauci: If you look at the curves of outbreaks historically that assembled it to this, the curve looks like this and then it goes up exponentially and that's the reason why it depends on how you respond now. So if we wait till we have many, many more cases, we will be multiple weeks behind. You know, I use the analogy at the press conference yesterday and I'll use it today. It's the old metaphor that the Wayne Gretzky approach, you know you skate not to where the puck is. but to where the puck is going to be. If we don't do very serious mitigation now, that what's going to happen is that we're going to be weeks behind and the horse is going to be out of the barn. And that's the reason why we've been saying even in areas of the country where there are no or few cases, we've got to change our behavior. We have to essentially assume that we are going to get hit. And that's why we talk about making mitigation and containment in a much more vigorous way. People ask, why would you want to make any mitigation? We don't have any cases. That's when you do it because we want this curve to be this and it's not going to do that unless we act now. 2:06:00 Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH) Robert Redfield: But also I see in the reports worldwide, we have a better than a 50% recovery rates. That true. Right. Robert Redfield: Right now, we'd say it's probably about 85%, sir. 2:06:45 Anthony Fauci: The end of the day. If you look at historically, for example, the experience we've had with China, about 80% of them have disease that makes people sick, but they ultimately recover without substantial medical intervention. Transcript & Video: , By Colorado Public Radio Staff and The Associated Press, March 11, 2020 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD210: The Afghanistan War

8 mars 2020 | 109 min

The Trump administration has made a deal with the Taliban which has been reported as "the beginning of the end" of the Afghanistan war... But is it? In this episode, an examination of Afghanistan's past helps us understand our current role in Afghanistan and by looking into the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, 2020 government funding law, and some key Congressional hearings, we get some insight into our possible future in terms of America's "forgotten war". Executive Producer: Sarah Judd Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Our Future in War The Brink of the Iran War Bills Page 53: Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: Allows up to $225 million to be given to other countries for military operations in Afghanistan in addition to over $1 billion that can be giving to “foreign security forces or other groups or individuals” for any “Department of Defense security cooperation programs” Page 55: Afghanistan Security Forces Fund: Provides over $4.1 billion to the security forces of Afghanistan that can be spent on equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, construction, and “funding”. Out of this $4.1 billion, $10 million musth be used for recruiting women into the Afghanistan National Security Forces Section 9021: Funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces are allowed to be transferred to them even if they have conducted human rights abuses that are so bad that funding them would be illegal, as long as the Defense Secretary certifies that “a denial of such assistance would… significantly undermine United States national security objectives in Afghanistan” and that Afghanistan’s officials have promised to do better. - 1,119 pages Signed December 20 Sec. 1211: Extends the authority for the Defense Department to transfer weapons and provide military services to the security forces of Afghanistan for two more years, until December 31, 2022. Section 1213: Allows (but doesn’t not require) a maximum of $3 million per year to be paid to people injured or killed by US forces or our partners. The Defense Secretary gets to write the regulations determining the amounts of payments and to whom they will go. Section 1216: The Secretary of State “shall seek to ensure the meaningful participation of Afghan women in the peace process in Afghanistan” Section 1520: Requires $10 million of the Afghanistan Security Forces fund to be spent on women’s integration and other women’s program Articles/Documents Article: by Gina Harkins, Military.com, March 4, 2020 Article: by Cat Schuknecht, BBC News, March 2, 2020 Article: by Mujib Mashal, The New York Times, March 1, 2020 Article: by Cat Schuknecht, npr, March 1, 2020 Article: by Lyse Doucet, BBC News, February 29, 2020 Article: by Tim Golden and Sebastian Rotella, The Nation, February 14, 2020 Article: by Donald Shaw and David Moore, Sludge, January 23, 2020 Article: by Donald Shaw and David Moore, Sludge, January 13, 2020 Article: by Alia Chughtai, Sludge, January 13, 2020 Document: , Senate Appropriations Committee, 2020 Document: , Senate Appropriations Committee, 2020 Article: By Maj. Danny Sjursen, truthdig, December 9, 2019 Article: By SARAH ALMUKHTAR and ROD NORDLAND, The New York Times, December 9, 2019 Article: by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, December 9, 2019 Article: By Claire Felter, Council on Foreign Relations, September 17, 2019 Article: BBC, September 9, 2019 Article: by Ellen Mitchell, Aljazeera, September 8, 2019 Article: by Paul D. Shinkman, U.S. News, April 26, 2019 Article: by Christopher Woody, Business Insider, January 8, 2019 Article: By Tara Copp, Military Times, September 5, 2018 Article: By Miriam Berger, Vox, July 31, 2018 Article: By Alfred W McCoy, The Guardian, January 9, 2018 Article: By Mariam Amini, CNBC, August 19, 2017 Article: SIGAR - Special Inspector General forAfghanistan Reconstruction, July 30, 2017 Article: By Mark Landler, Eric Schmitt and Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, July 10, 2017 Article: by Erik D. Prince, WSJ, May 31, 2017 Article: By Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, November 20, 2016 Article: , npr, July 18, 2016 Article: , John Cassidy, The New Yorker, April 22, 2016 Article: , Mark Landler, The New York Times, April 21, 2016 Article: by Anthony Flint, Boston Globe, December 29, 2015 Article: by BRENDAN VAUGHAN, GQ, October 21, 2015 Article: by Ali M Latifi, Vice, October 1, 2014 Article: by Antony Loewenstein, The Nation, December 14, 2014 Article: PBS, May 4, 2011 Article: By By James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin, The New York Times, October 3, 2007 Additional Resources Homepage Video Mar 4, 2020 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , United States Senate Armed Services Committee, February 11, 2020 Witnesses Jack Keane: Chairman of the Institute for The Study of War Appointed by John McCain when he was Chairman to the Congressional Committee on the National Defense Strategy Dr. Colin Jackson: Professor at the United States Naval War College Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia Transcript: 27:30 Jack Keane: General, Scott Miller, one of our very best commanders in Afghanistan who was due to brief you next month, was working on reducing U.S. troop presence before negotiations began with the Taliban. He concluded after he took command and did his assessment that he had more troops than are required to do the mission. In other words, the troop reduction that we will undergo to 8,600 is an acceptable risk in the mind of the Commander in Charge. Second, we need to reduce the financial burden on the United States. Currently it's around $45.5 billion from a high down from a high of 110 billion in 2010 during the Afghan surge. Let's get it down. It's possible, certainly below 30 billion initially and eventually below that. Not just because of the troop reductions, but by reductions also in contractors who represent a $27 billion cost of the 45 billion. Ashraf Ghani, who I've spoken to on more than one occasion, if he forms a new government, wants to reduce the U.S. burden of $5 billion to the Afghan national security forces, he wants to provide more funds himself. He thinks he can do that, and he's had negotiations with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE and a couple of others to assist in the financing. 1:51:00 Sen. Angus King (ME): We're doing counter terrorism in other countries without a military presence. Colin Jackson: Absolutely. Sen. Angus King (ME): Would that be possible in Afghanistan? Colin Jackson: Not in the same way. In other words, it's much more...it's much easier for us geographically and politically to operate in a place like Yemen from offshore than it is for us to operate offshore into Afghanistan. It has to do with distances. It has to do with agreements with neighboring countries, that type of thing. 1:52:20 Sen. Angus King (ME): Is this a case, would you make to the American people that this is a place where we need an indefinite presence? Not at a terribly high level but as at a level that will enable us to keep, as I think you use the term "keep a foot on the throat of the terrorists." Jack Keane: I totally agree with that assessment. I think it's a political apple that leaders are not willing to swallow and talk to the American people honestly about - this is a multigenerational problem that we've got. We are being selective about which radical Islamic groups are threatening the American people. And you can make a case that we could possibly have to have a counterterrorism for us someplace in central South Asia, best place is Afghanistan, as long as that threat is there indefinitely. Sen. Angus King (ME): And it will require a military presence to support the counter terrorism function, is that what you're saying? Jack Keane: And I think we will eventually, frankly, get down below 8,600, at some point, and we'll narrow that down to Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and Air Power that's outside the country to be able to support our activities. But it could possibly lead to an indefinite commitment of a small number of forces in that country. Much like we have less than a thousand now trying to keep our foot on ISIS, keep our foot on their throat in Syria to make sure that they don't re-emerge. Sen. Angus King (ME): I think you'd agree on it and I'm out of time, but I think you'd agree that if that's going to be the case, somebody's got to tell the American people. Jack Keane: I totally agree with that, Senator. Totally agree with that. Sen. Angus King (ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1:53:48 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): I think there's merit in having a closed hearing for this committee. But not necessarily, we can do it ourselves. Good thought. We'll follow through. Hearing: , United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Homeland Security, January 28, 2020 Witnesses John Sopko: Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Transcript: 17:35 Rep. Jody Hice (GA): To date, American taxpayers have spent $780 billion on combat operations, $137 billion on reconstruction efforts since 2002, so we're pushing $1 trillion here during that time. And in spite of that money, we've lost 2,400 courageous American service members during the conflict and one stat that often is overlooked is over 20,000 who had been wounded in action, many of them very seriously. 18:15 Rep. Jody Hice (GA): The United States is drawn down our military presence from a peak of about a hundred thousand under the Obama administration to less than 14,000 today. 26:30 John Sopko: Unfortunately, since my last appearance, not much has changed on the ground in Afghanistan to diminish our concerns. The military situation is still a deadly stalemate. The Afgan economy - extremely weak. Corruption - rampant. Narcotics production - growing. Reintegration of ex-combatants - problematic. Women's rights - threatened. And oversight restricted by widespread insecurity. Our newest quarterly report, which will be released in a few days, discusses all of these threats and in particular highlights that if peace is to be sustainable, financial support from donors will need to continue and may need to continue for years to come. 28:00 John Sopko: Now more than ever, I caution that if there is a peace agreement and continued assistance provided to the Afghan people, oversight needs to remain mission critical. Otherwise you might as well pile up all the dollars and euros in Masood Circle and downtown Kabul and burn them for whatever good they can accomplish. 32:55 John Sopko: Every metric that we used to provide you the Congress and the American people in our quarterly reports. Every metric that you would find useful is now either classified or no longer available. Now it's available, some of it in a classified setting, and I know Chairman, you and I spent some time there briefing on it. You know how difficult it is to use that, but this was information that we'd been providing publicly for years, and then it's been taken away. So that is a problem, but I can't answer why they eliminated that. 46:00 John Sopko: We decided to embark upon trying to learn some lessons from those 18 years. And what happened is in the course of that, we got a lot of information, reviewed a lot of cables, interviewed a lot of people. Some of the people we interviewed were reflective of what happened 10 years ago. And they basically were saying...I think General Lute and others that...we didn't know what was going on, but that was sort of after the fact. They're reflecting. It was very useful information in some areas, but a lot of the information was also talking about the warfighting and none of our reports deal with the warfighting. We deal with reconstruction and the training. We don't look at whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. So when Ambassador Lute or General Flynn say, we shouldn't be there, that's nice. It's his opinion, it's their opinion. But it doesn't help us do these lessons learned reports, which we've done seven. So that explains it. It's not that these people were evil, they're just reflecting on what they saw and observed seven, eight years ago. 48:55 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk - success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success and that goes up. 50:25 John Sopko: Well, Congress, I don't know if I can answer the bigger question about whether we are wasting our time or not. I'm going to leave that to you and the President to decide. But we are giving them systems, whether it's military hardware or other systems, that they can't use. And one of the questions we asked early on is do the Afghans and know about what we're giving them? Will they use it? Do they want it? And we couldn't even get government agencies that asked those questions. And I have run across Afghans who said, "I didn't know that clinic was being built until it was given to us by the donors." 53:05 John Sopko: We also have this hubris, which I think was identified before, that we think we can turn Afghanistan into little America or another Norway. We can't. That's the hubris. 54:25 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time, cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that on us, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 56:15 John Sopko: Well, I think now more than ever, because there are fewer state department aid people and DOD people there, you need somebody watching the store. And there will be a tendency, because of a security situation, decrease staffing to give the money directly to the Afghan government or to give the money through third party monitors such as the world bank and UN and other international organizations. And we have reported in the past that, first of all, the Afghan government's incapable of handling the money. We really need to do a ministerial assessment ministry by ministry to determine whether they can handle our taxpayer money. And then secondly, we have some real questions about some of these international organizations. The UN and the World Bank we've already identified have serious problems with monitoring it. So what we're saying is don't just focus on the troop level. Don't just focus on the amount of money, focus on how we are going to protect the U.S. taxpayers dollars. That's why I think now more than ever, we have to keep our focus on that. 59:11 Rep. Tom Massie (KY): Can you tell us how much we have spent on Afghanistan reconstruction at this point? John Sopko Congressman Massey, I can. The latest figure is 136.97 billion as of December 31st. So 136, you can round it off to 137 billion. That's staggering to me. But just for reference, the entire federal budget for roads and bridges is 50 billion to 60 billion. It's gone up a little bit. We could double our spending on our nation's infrastructure for two or three years for what we've spent in Afghanistan. 1:04:10 John Sopko: This building of this empire. You talk about it, you don't want to see, well, there is a soldier or somebody from the Pentagon who is trying to oversee that. If he comes back and the first traunch who's going to be protecting your money? That's my concern. That is the big concern. Getting out as a concern. But we've kind of worked our way around that. But you can't cut the oversight capabilities of Aid, State, and DOD in this, this drive for what they called right-sizing. 1:06:35 John Sopko: It has been our goal from the beginning is that kicked the Taliban out and try to help to create an Afghan government to keep the bad guys out from attacking us. So that's been a constant goal of all of the administrations. Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): However, that goal seems to be very far in the distance. I mean, we have a great difficulty in achieving that. Correct? John Sopko: Well, I think the obvious answer is that we got 80,000 or 60,000 Taliban plus you have five to 10,000, I think ISIS members, and you got 20 over terrorist groups there. So obviously we have not succeeded in keeping the bad guys out or creating a government that can keep them out. 1:10:25 John Sopko: 70%. Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. 1:10:45 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI) I can only think of those soldiers, those USA ID individuals who had been there all these years through their rotations, risking life, supporting the Americans objective, to have that thrown away because we believe we need to withdraw our troops at this point is just such a slap in their face. 1:13:15 Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): And the American people, be sure the money being sent to Afghanistan is being spent for legitimate purposes and not being used for corrupt purposes. John Sopko: As hard as we all try, I don't think I have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the money being spent and its intended purposes. And I don't mean to be facetious ma'am, but the former head of CSTCA is an example. That's the Combined Security Training Command Afghanistan - estimated at one point that 50% of the fuel that we purchase for the Afghans disappears. 50%, so we're talking billions. So it is a significant problem, ma'am. 1:16:30 Chairman Carolyn Maloney (NY): I'd like to focus my questions on the importance of women in Afghanistan and the differences that has made with a America allowing them to participate in the economy and an education. I recall when we first went to Afghanistan, women were murdered and killed if they went to school. And now I'm told that they have made a tremendous progress over the past 18 years. They make up a 14% of a kindergarten to 12th grade and 30% of university students now are women. And there are more than 170 public and private higher education institutions across the country, even in the most difficult parts of Afghanistan. And I'm told that women are the majority of teachers at these schools, which is important. And according to some government reports, women make up to 27% of government employees before they were not even allowed to work. And they serve as ministers, deputy ministers, judges, and in many other positions. According to the United nations, maternal mortality rates...They used to be second in the world and they have fallen substantially. And that is because there are so many women that are trained as midwives and health professionals now and are working to help other women. And I understand they're over 530 public and private hospitals and hundreds of health and sub health centers. And even if these numbers are exaggerated women appear to be an important part of the success that is happening, certainly in education and healthcare. And so, wouldn't that alone makeup our investments, wouldn't that alone justify our investments in the country? I know the United nations has made several reports that when women are educated and empowered and respected, the amount of terrorism in that country or in that village goes down. So investing in women and allowing them to be part of of the country and not killing them if they go to school. I think we've made a tremendous impact in that country. And I'm afraid if we retreat and leave, it'll go back to the way it was before. 1:19:40 John Sopko: I must admit, for all the trips I've gone there and all of the Afghan women I have talked to, I have not met one Afghan woman who trusts the Taliban. And the concern is if they're excluded from the negotiations or if the negotiations are done by men and they ignore the advances, it is going to be very bad for women in Afghanistan. 1:29:45 John Sopko: Well, we actually, at the request of former Congressman Walter P. Jones and others, we did an analysis on how much money was wasted in Afghanistan. It was a very difficult, long term project. So we looked at all of our contracts that we have reviewed. And so 52 billion of that, 136 billion we looked at, and we basically determined that up to 15 billion. So about 30% was either wasted or stolen. Now, that was just of the universe that we had already looked at. 1:31:00 John Sopko: And again, how do we define waste? You notice three variables that we as IGs look at inputs, outputs, and outcomes. We look at the outcome that the administrations told Congress they were supposed to resolve. So like in counternarcotics, it was to lessen the amount of opium, it was to end that scourge. Well, it's been a total waste. None of our programs have led to any reduction in opium in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, opium is the largest export of Afghanistan. It's more than the licit crop. I think it's 1.2 to $2 billion in export. The licit, the pine nuts and everything else they sell comes to less than a billion. So we looked at that program and said, that's a waste. We spent, we wasted $9 billion. We've accomplished really nothing. 1:32:25 John Sopko: Back in 2013, I sent a letter to the Sec Def, Sec State and Administrator of USAID and I said, can you list your top 10 successes and your bottom 10 failures and why? And this would have forced the administration to rack and stack their programs, list what works, what doesn't, and try to understand what works there. They refused to answer the mail in 2013. So in 2014 we basically came up the lessons learned program. I was trying to answer my mail to you. You got to force the administration to be honest. And, and it's not political, Republican, Democrat. The administration has to come in and tell you specifically, why are you spending this money? What do you expect to accomplish at the end, you're going to spend $9 billion in counter narcotics and the end result is that there's actually more opium been grown. Are you going to spend $500 million on airplanes and they can't fly? You're going to spend millions of dollars on air on buildings that melt. I mean, you need to hold people accountable. You need to bring in the head of those programs and say, "what were you thinking?" And don't be negative about it. Just say, look at if it doesn't work, stop, do something else. 1:38:15 John Sopko: But if you decide this is important, then the biggest stick you have for the Afghans as well as the Taliban, because the Taliban want foreign assistance too. That's what's been reported, is that 70% of the budget, those billions of dollars that they will want, and you have to hold their feet to the fire. It's called conditionality. So if you want assistance, you can't go back to your old ways. I mean, that would be the way I would bargain this. 1:42:55 John Sopko: We need to have a government that the Afghan people trust and believe in, and it offers a modicum of services that those people want. Because the difficulty we have is that, for example, Afghan people want a little bit of justice. They don't want to have to pay a bribe to get it. What we gave them were a bunch of courthouses that looked nice. They would fit in any American city, but that's not what the Afghan people wanted. They wanted a modicum of justice that they didn't have to pay a bribe. Hearing: , C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, January 6, 2020 Guest Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post Transcript: 1:45 Bill Scanlan: The Special Inspector General - SIGAR...They've done monthly reports, almost weekly updates. They're very transparent and open. What was the purpose they told you of these, these interviews and why had they been held secret or classified or unavailable to the public? Craig Whitlock: Right. So the reason they did these interviews was for a special project called Lessons Learned in which they were trying to figure out the mistakes made during the war in Afghanistan. This started in 2014 and it's important to remember, this was five years ago, people thought the war was coming to an end. You know, President Obama had declared an end to combat operations. He had promised to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of his presidency. So the Inspector General thought it'd be a good time to figure out what mistakes were made that they could learn about for the future if they were ever involved in another war. So they did hundreds of these interviews and did publish a number of reports about these lessons learned. But what they did is they left out all the good parts, all the striking quotes, all the unvarnished commentary from people who were involved in the war about just how bad things were. They left all that out, and so we had to go in under the Freedom of Information Act and obtain those. That way. They're not classified, these are public documents. It's just we had to persuade the Inspector General to finally release them. Speech: , C-SPAN, White House Speech, March 27, 2009 Guest Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post Transcript: 5:00 Barack Obama: So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. 12:00: Barack Obama: We will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. 13:55 Barack Obama: to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that, isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations. 15:20 Barack Obama: As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction. Testimony: , C-SPAN, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 25, 2001 Witness Colin Powell: Secretary of State Transcript: 26:50 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. 27:10 Colin Powell: We need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan. 27:25 Colin Powell: Ambassador Richard Haass, the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department is my personal representative working with the United Nations. 42:45 Colin Powell: I think once the Taliban regime is gone and there's hope for a new broad-based government that represents all the people of Afghanistan, and when aid starts to flow in, I think that will cause most of the groupings in Afghanistan to realize this is not the time to fight this as the time to participate in this new world. That's our hope. Public Address: , C-SPAN, President George W. Bush, October 7, 2001 Transcript: President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaida terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands, closed terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

CD209: USMCA with Lori Wallach

23 februari 2020 | 69 min

The Trump administration renegotiated NAFTA and the 116th Congress passed those changes in order to make the USMCA into law. In this episode, international trade expert Lori Wallach, the Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, joins Jen to explain the differences between NAFTA and the USMCA. What you hear may surprise you. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Fast Tracking Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority The World Trade Organization: COOL? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Bills Bill: Congress.gov, January 16, 2020 About Lori Wallach , Linked In , Public Citizen , Public Citizen , Public Citizen , Influence Watch , Facebook , Twitter , Twitter , Instagram Articles/Documents Article: By Barbara Duckworth, The Western Producer, February 13, 2020 Article: By Lori Wallach, The Globalist, January 24, 2020 Article: By Cathy Siegner, FoodDive, November 5, 2019 Article: Public Citizen Article: By Erica Shaffer, Meat + Poultry, November 4, 2019 Article: by David Dayen, The American Prospect, October 31, 2019 Article: by Raymond Arke, OpenSecrets.org, May 8, 2019 Article: by Tom Miles, Reuters, December 14, 2018 Article: by Ana Swanson, The New York Times, March 9, 2018 Document: By M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson, Congressional Research Service, May 24, 2017 Article: By Victoria Guida, POLITICO, March 14, 2017 Article: By Amiti Sen, New Scientist, November 11, 2016 Document: By Joel L. Greene, Congressional Research Service, December 8, 2015 Article: By Padma Tata, New Scientist, March 29, 2005 Additional Resources Vote Results: United States Senate, January 16, 2020 Vote Results: House of Representatives Clerk, December 19, 2019 Trade Agreement: Office of the United States Trade Representative, December 13, 2019 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD208: The Brink of the Iran War

9 februari 2020 | 101 min

2020 began with a bombing in Iraq - ordered by President Trump - which killed one of Iran's highest ranking military officers. In this episode, we take a close look at the recent history of our relationship with the Iranian government in order to understand how we started the year on the brink of another war. Also, since our President is a total wildcard, we look at what Congress authorized for 2020 in terms of war with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Why Attack Syria? Fast Tracking Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority) Regime Change Bombing Libya Terrorist Gifts & The Ministry of Propaganda (2017 NDAA) Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran The Illegal Bombing of Syria State of War A Coup for Capitalism The “Democracies” Of Elliott Abrams Yemen Bills Bill: Congress.gov, December 20, 2019 Sec. 1208: Eliminates the authorization for payments that started in late 2016 “for damage, personal injury, or death that is incident to combat operations of the armed forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Sec. 1210A: Allows the Defense Department to give the State Department and USAID money for “stabilization activities” in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia and authorizes an additional $100 million for this year (bringing the limit up to $450 million) Sec. 1217: Allows the Defense Secretary to use War on Terror money for paying “any key cooperating nation (other than Pakistan)” for logistical, military, or other support that nation gives to our military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. Sec. 1221: Withholds at least half of the $645 million authorized by the for “military and other security forces of or associated with the Government of Iraq, including Kurdish and tribal security forces or other local security forces” for “training, equipment, logistics support, supplies, and services, stipends, facility and infrastructure repair and renovation, and sustainment” until the DoD submits a report that includes an estimate of the funding anticipated to support the Iraqi Security Forces through September 2025. The report also needs to include how much and what kind of assistance if being given to forces in Iraq by the Government of Iran. Also, a new stipulation is added saying that our military assistance authorized since 2015 “may only be exercised in consultation with the Government of Iraq.” Sec. 1222: Changes the authorization from 2015 that allowed the Defense Department to train, equip, supply, give money to and construct facilities for “vetted elements of the Syria opposition” so that the “opposition” is no longer allowed to get the money or training. The new language eliminates all mentions of the “opposition” groups and deletes “promoting the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria” from the list of authorized purposes. The new language focuses specifically on providing assistance to combat the Islamic State and al Qaeda. It also limits the kinds of weapons that can be given to Syria groups to “small arms or light weapons” (there is a way for the Defense Secretary to waive this) and it limits the amount that can be spent on construction projects to $4 million per project or $20 million total. Sec. 1223: Eliminates the authority for the Defense Department to fund “operations and activities of security assistance teams in Iraq” and removes the authority to pay for “construction and renovation of facilities”. The law still allows $30 million for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (a $15 million funding cut). The authorization will then sunset 90 days after enactment (mid March 2020). The OSCI can’t get more than $20 million until they appoint a Senior Defense Official to oversee the office, develop a staffing plan “similar to that of other security cooperation offices in the region”, and they create a five-year “security assistance roadmap” that enables “defense institution building and reform.” Sec. 1284: “Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, may be construed to authorize the use of military force, including the use of military force against Iran or any other country.” Sec. 5322: Creates a “Foreign Malign Influence Response Center” under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which will “be comprised of analysts from all elements of the intelligence community, including elements with diplomatic an law enforcement functions” and will be the “primary organization” for analyzing all intelligence “pertaining to foreign malign influence.” The foreign countries that will specifically be reported on are, in this order, Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and “any other country”. “Foreign malign influence” means “any hostile effort undertaken by, at the direction of, or on behalf of or with the substantial support of, the government of a covered foreign country with he objective of influencing, through overt or covert means the (A) political, military, economic or other policies or activities of the United States Government… including any election within the United States or (B) the public opinion within the United States.” Sec. 5521: “It is the sense of Congress that, regardless of the ultimate number of United States military personnel deployed to Syria, it is a vital interest of the United States to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian backed forces from establishing a strong and enduring presence in Syria that can be used to project power in the region and threaten the United States and its allies, including Israel.”A report is required within six months that will include how Iran is militarily training and funding the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad and the threat that Iran’s forces pose to “areas of northeast Syria that are currently controlled by local partner forces of the United States.” The report also must outline “how Iran and Iranian backed forces seek to enhance the long-term influence of such entities in Syria through non-military means such as purchasing strategic real estate in Syria, constructing Shia religious centers in schools, securing loyalty from Sunni tribes in exchange for material assistance, and inducing the Assad government to open Farsi language department at Syrian universities.” The report must also include “How Iran is working with the Russian Federation, Turkey, and other countries to increase the influence of Iran in Syria.” The NDAA assumes the Iranian goals in Syria are "protecting the Assad government, increasing the regional influence of Iran, threatening Israel from a more proximate location, building weapon production facilities and other military infrastructure, and securing a land bridge to connect to run through Iraq and Syria to the stronghold of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.” The report also must include descriptions of "the efforts of Iran to transfer advanced weapons to Hisballah and to establish a military presence in Syria has led to direct and repeated confrontations with Israel”, "the intelligence and military support that the United States provides to Israel to help Israel identify and appropriately address specific threats to Israel from Iran and Iranian-backed forces in Syria”, “The threat posed to Israel and other allies of the United States in the middle east resulting from the transfer of arms to… Hezbollah”, and “Iranian expenditures in the previous calendar year on military and terrorist activities outside the country, including the amount of such expenditures with respect to each of Hizballah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hamas, and proxy forces in Iraq and Syria.” Sec. 6706: The (Section 501) created a committee made up of the Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, Secretary of Energy, FBI Director, and the heads of “each of the other elements of the intelligence community” for the purposes of countering “active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and government by exposing falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services are political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.” This NDAA adds China, Iran, North Korea, “or other nation state” to the target list. Sec. 6729: Orders an Intelligence Assessment into the revenue sources of North Korea, specifically requiring inquiries into “(1) Trade in coal, iron, and iron ore. (2) Fishing rights in North Korea’s territorial waters (3) Trade in gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, copper, silver, nickel, zinc, and rare earth minerals.” They also want to know what banking institutions are processing North Korean financial transactions. Sec. 7412: Effective starting in June 2020, the President “shall” enact sanctions on a “foreign person” if that person gives money, material or technical support to the Government of Syria, is a military contractor working for the Government of Syria, the Russian government, or the Iranian government, sells items that “significantly facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the Government of Syria’s domestic production of natural has, petroleum, or petroleum products”, or “directly or indirectly, provides significant construction or engineering services to the Government of Syria.” If the sanctions are violated, the President “shall” use his power to “block and prohibit all transactions in property and interests in property of the foreign person” if that property “comes within the United States, are come within the possession or control of United States person.” The foreign persons will also be ineligible for visas into the United States except to permit the United States to comply with the agreement regarding the headquarters of the United Nations or to assist with US law-enforcement. Sec. 7402: Statement of Policy: …”to support a transition to a government in Syria that respects the rule of law, human rights, and peaceful co-existence with its neighbors.” Sec. 7411: Gives the Secretary of the Treasury until late June to determine “whether reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Central Bank of Syria is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.” If it’s a yes, the Secretary of the Treasury “shall” impose “” that could require banks to retain more records about transactions in Syria, give the government information about the people who conduct financial transactions with people in Syria, or prohibit US banks from opening accounts for Syrian banks. Sec. 7413: Orders the President to submit a strategy to Congress by June 2020 to “deter foreign persons from entering into contracts related to reconstruction” in areas of Syria under the control of the Government of Syria, the Government of Russia, or the Government of Iran. Sec. 7424: Authorizes the Secretary of State to “provide assistance to support entities that are conducting criminal investigations, supporting prosecutions, or collecting evidence” against those that have committed war crimes in Syria. The assistance can’t be given as long as President Bashar al-Assad is in power, can’t be used to build judicial capacities of the Syrian government, or for prosecutions in the domestic courts of Syria. Sec. 7438: This title (Sections 7401-7438) sunsets in 5 years. Bill: Congress.gov, January 9, 2020 Bill: GPO, January 3, 2019 Sec. 9007: No funds from this year’s funding or any other law can’t be used to “establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Forces in Iraq” or to “exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq” Bill: Congress.gov, August 5, 1996 Articles/Documents Article: by Barbara Starr and Zachary Choen, CNN, January 30, 2020 Article: by Merrit Kennedy, npr, January 30, 2020 Article: by Ellen Mitchell, The Hill, January 28, 2020 Article: by Caleb Hampton and Caitlin Dickerson, The New York Times, January 25, 2020 Article: by Suzanne Maloney and Keian Razipour, Brookings, January 24, 2020 Document: by Kenneth Katzman, Congressional Research Service, January 24, 2020 Article: by Jon Schwarz, The Intercept, January 16, 2020 Article: by Alexandra Brzozowski, Euractiv, January 14, 2020 Article: by Donald Shaw and David Moore, Sludge, January 13, 2020 Article: by Nasser Karimi and Joseph Krauss, AP, January 11, 2020 Article: by Karen Zraick, The New York Times, January 11, 2020 Article: by Alex Emmons, The Intercept, January 10, 2020 Article: by Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent, The Washington Post, January 10, 2020 Article: by John Hudson, Missy Ryan and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, January 10, 2020 Article: By Ricardo Vaz, Venezuelanalysis.com, January 8, 2020 Article: Aljazeera, January 8, 2020 Article: by Deniz Çam and Christopher Helman, Forbes, January 7, 2020 Article: by Sawsan Morrar and Sam Stanton, The Sacramento Bee, January 7, 2020 Article: by Matthew Lee, Associated Press, January 7, 2020 Article: by Michelle Nichols, Reuters, January 7, 2020 Article: by Zachary Laub and Kali Robinson, Council on Foreign Relations, January 7, 2020 Article: by Michael Crowley, The New York Times, January 6, 2020 Article: by Matthew S. Schwartz, npr, January 4, 2020 Article: by Sarah Mervosh, The New York Times, January 3, 2020 Article: by Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept, January 3, 2020 Article: by Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, January 3, 2020 Article: by Ryan Cooper, The Week, January 3, 2020 Article: Aljazeera, January 3, 2020 Article: By Derek Davison, Foreign Exchanges, January 2, 2020 Article: By Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The New York Times, January 2, 2020 Article: RFE/RL staff, OilPrice.com, January 2, 2020 Article: Aljazeera, December 31, 2019 Article: Ellen Knickmeyer and Qassim Abdul-Zahra, AP, December 30, 2019 Article: BBC News, December 11, 2019 Article: by Franklin Foer, BBC News, December 9, 2019 Article: by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, December 9, 2019 Article: Militarist Monitor, October 18, 2019 Article: BBC News, October 14, 2019 Article: Aljazeera, September 25, 2019 Article: NDTV, September 5, 2019 Press Release: by European Union External Action, July 15, 2019 Article: By Joe Gould, DefenseNews, July 15, 2019 Article: By Siobhan Dowling, Aljazeera, July 1, 2019 Press Release: by European Union External Action, June 28, 2019 Article: Aljazeera, June 22, 2019 Article: By Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, May 13, 2019 Article: Aljazeera, May 6, 2019 Statement: WhiteHouse.gov, May 5, 2019 Article: Aljazeera, April 8, 2019 Statement: WhiteHouse.gov, April 8, 2019 Document: By Pat Towell and Aras D. Kazlauskas, Congressional Research Center, August 8, 2018 Article: By Aljazeera News, May 21, 2018 Article: By Mark Mazzetti, Ronen Bergman and David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, May 19, 2018 Article: By Andrew Rudalevige , The Washington Post, May 9, 2018 Article: By Mark Landler, The New York Times, May 8, 2018 Article: By Robert J. Terry, The Washington Business Journal, April 19, 2018 Article: By Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Foreign Policy, June 20, 2017 Article: By Shane Harris, The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2017 Article: By Max Greenwood, The Hill, May 10, 2017 Article: By Dexter Filkins, The New Yorker, September 23, 2013 Article: By Ian Black, The Guardian, September 23, 2010 Document: Administration of William J. Clinton, GPO, May 7, 1995 Document: Administration of William J. Clinton, GPO, March 15, 1995 Additional Resources Biography: Foundation for Defense of Democracies Budget: By Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, March 2019 Budget: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, February 2017 Fundraising Summary: OpenSecrets.org Joint Resolution: GPO, Congress.gov, September 18, 2001 Podcast Episode: Document: GovInfo.gov Video: Bernie Sanders Video: By Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept Vote Results: Clerk of House of Representatives Vote Results: Clerk of House of Representatives Sound Clip Sources Press Conference: , The Hill, January 10, 2020 Hearing: , United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, January 14, 2020 Witnesses DID NOT SHOW: Mike Pompeo Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Avril Haines, Columbia University (formerly NSA and CIA) Stephen Hadley Transcript: 44:55 Richard Haass: Here, I would highlight the American decision in 2018 to exit the 2015 nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, and the decision to introduce significant sanctions against Iran. These sanctions constituted a form of economic warfare. Iran was not in a position to respond in kind and instead instituted a series of military actions meant to make the United States and others pay a price for these sanctions and therefore to conclude they needed to be removed. It is also important, I believe, to point out here that the United States did not provide a diplomatic alternative to Iran when it imposed these sanctions. This was the context in which the targeted killing of Qassem Suleimani took place. This event needs to be assessed from two vantage points. One is legality. It would have been justified to attack Suleimani if he was involved in mounting a military action that was imminent. If there is evidence that can responsibly be made public supporting that these criteria were met of imminence, it should be. If, however, it turns out criteria were not met, that what took place was an action of choice rather than the necessity, I fear it will lead to an open ended conflict between the United States and Iran. Fought in many places with many tools and few red lines that will be observed. The President tweeted yesterday that the question of this imminence doesn't really matter. I would respectfully disagree. Imminence is central to the concept of preemption, which is treated in international law as a legitimate form of self defense. Preventive attacks though are something very different. They are mounted against a gathering threat rather than an imminent one, and a world of regular preventive actions would be one in which conflict was prevalent. 47:20 Richard Haass: First, there were other, and I believe better ways to reestablish deterrence with Iran. Secondly, the killing interrupted what I believe were useful political dynamics in both Iran and Iraq. Thirdly, U.S.-Iraqi ties were deeply strained. Fourthly, we've been forced to send more forces to the region rather than make them available elsewhere. Fifthly, given all worldwide challenges, I do not believe it is in our strategic interest to have a new war in the middle East. And six, Iran has already announced plans to take steps at odds with the JCPOA, which will shrink the window it needs to build a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so. And if this happens, it will present both the United States and Israel with difficult and potentially costly choices. 50:16 Richard Haass: Let me just make a few recommendations and I know my time is growing short. One, the United States should work closely with its allies and other signatories of the JCPOA to put together the outlines of a new agreement. Call it JCPOA 2.0 and present Iran with a new deal. It would establish longer term or better yet open-ended limits on Iran, nuclear and missile programs. In exchange for sanctions relief, Congress should approve any such agreement to remove the concern that this pack could be easily undone by any President, and such initiatives should emerge from consultation with allies. Our policy toward Iran has become overly unilateral and is less effective for it. 1:02:50 Stephen Hadley: The problem was that the strike occurred in Iraq. The fear of becoming the central battleground in a military confrontation between the United States and Iran is being used to justify calls for the expulsion of us forces from Iraq. But a U.S. withdrawal would only reward Kata'ib Hezbollah's campaign of violence, strengthen the uranium backed militias, weaken the Iraqi government, undermine Iraqi sovereignty, and jeopardize the fight against ISIS. A terrible outcome for both the United States and Iraq. To keep U.S. Forces in Iraq, Iraqi authorities will have to manage the domestic political fallout from the strike on Suleimani. U.S. Administration and the Congress can help by making public statements reaffirming that America respects the sovereignty and independence of Iraq that U.S. Forces are in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces and to help them protect the Iraqi people from a resurgent ISIS that the United States will coordinate with the Iraqi government on matters involving the U.S. Troop presence, that so long as U.S. Troops and diplomats in Iraq are not threatened, America's confrontation with Iran will not be played out on Iraqi territory, and that the United States supports the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a government that can meet their needs and expectations, and is free of corruption, sectarianism and outside influence. 1:49:30 Richard Haass: The other thing I think you heard from all three of us is the importance of repairing the U.S.-Iraqi relationship. I mean, think about it. Qasem Soleimani's principle goal was to drive the United States out of Iraq. Why in the world would we want to facilitate his success there after his death? We ought to make sure that doesn't happen. And Steve Hadley gave, I thought, a lot of good ideas about ways we could signal almost to help the Iraqi government manage the Iraqi politics. We could also look at some creative things. When I was in the Pentagon years ago, when we were building what became Central Command, we used to look at the idea of presence without stationing. There's ways to have a regular force presence without necessarily having forces be permanent. This may help the Iraqi government manage the politics of it without a serious diminuition of our capabilities. 1:58:20 Richard Haass: I think there's a fundamental difference between taking out a member of a terrorist organization and taking out an individual who is, who was an official of a nation state, who happens to use terrorist organizations to promote what the state sees as its agenda. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, I'm saying it's a big step. We've crossed a line here. So I think one thing this committee needs to think about is when it looks at AUMF's, none is on the books that allows us to do this as best I understand. So I think it's a legitimate question for this committee to say, do we need to think about an AUMF towards Iran that deals with this set of scenarios, where Iran would use military force to promote its ends, and also with the one that both Steve Hadley and I have talked about here, about the gathering threat on the Iranian nuclear side. 2:07:50 Avril Haines: Clearly the strike had an enormous impact on our relationship with Iraq. Iraq has come out and indicated that they did not provide consent for this particular strike on their territory. And it has brought the parliament to the point where they've actually passed to vote calling for the U.S. Forces to leave. And we've seen that the Prime Minister has indicated that in fact, they want a delegation to talk about leaving Iraq. And I think, as Dr. Haass noted, this is in many respects exactly what Solemani had wanted. And as a consequence, we're now in a position where I think it will be likely that it is unsustainable for us to have the presence that we've had. I hope that's not true. I hope that we can in fact, get through this period with them and that their domestic politics don't erupt in such a way that it makes it impossible for us to stay. 2:42:15 Rep. Adriano Espaillat: My question to you individually, this is a yes or no answer question, is whether or not you feel you gathered enough information or evidence, that from the inspectors or otherwise that you feel that Iran complied with the provisions established by the JCPOA. Mr Hass, do you feel that they complied? Yes or no? Richard Haass: Based on everything I've read, the international inspectors made the case that Iran was in compliance. Rep. Adriano Espaillat: Ms. Haines? Avril Haines: Yeah, same. Rep. Adriano Espaillat: Mr. Hadley? Stephen Hadley: So far as I know, yes. Interview: , Bret Baier with Fox News Channel Interviews Mike Pompeo, RealClear Politics, January 13, 2020 Speakers Mike Pompeo Bret Baier Transcript: Mike Pompeo: Not only when I was CIA director did I see the history and then what was the current activity for the first year and a half of this administration. But when I was a member of Congress serving on the house intelligence committee, I saw too, Suleimani's been a bad actor for decades in the region. He has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hand. He's killed, or contributed to the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, Muslims, mostly throughout the region. This was a bad actor. And when we came to the point where we could see that he was plotting imminent attacks in the region to threaten Americans, a big attack, we recommended to the President he take this action. The president made the right decision. Press Conference: , White House Press Briefing, The New York Times, January 10, 2020 Transcript: Mike Pompeo: We had specific information on an imminent threat, and that threat included attacks on U.S. embassies, period. Full stop. Reporter: What's your definition of imminent? Mike Pompeo: This was going to happen, and American lives were at risk, and we would have been culpably negligent, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, that we would've been culpably negligent had we not recommended the President that he take this action with Qasam Suleimani. He made the right call and America is safer as a result of that. I don't know exactly which minute, we don't know exactly which day it would have been executed, but it was very clear. Qasam Suleimani himself was plotting a broad, large scale attack against American interests, and those attacks were imminent. Press Conference: , The Washington Post, January 8, 2020 Transcript: Mike Lee: They're appearing before a coordinate branch of government, a coordinate branch of government responsible for their funding, for their confirmation, for any approval of any military action they might undertake. They had to leave after 75 minutes while they're in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public. I find that absolutely insane. I think it's unacceptable. And so I don't know what they had in mind. I went in there hoping to get more specifics as far as the factual, legal, moral justification for what they did. I'm still undecided on that issue in part because we never got to the details. Every time we got close, they'd say, well, we can't discuss that here because it's really sensitive. We're in a skiff. We're in a secure underground bunker where all electronic devices have to be checked at the door and they still refuse to tell us. I find that really upsetting. Interview: The Hill, January 3, 2020 Transcript: Mike Pompeo: We know it was imminent. This was an intelligence based assessment that drove our decision making process. Hearing: House Armed Services Committee, December 11, 2019 Witnesses Mark Esper - Secretary of Defense General Mark Milley - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Transcript: 25:20 Mark Esper: Since May of this year, nearly 14,000 U.S. military personnel have deployed to the region to serve as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to our allies and our partners. These additional forces are not intended to signal an escalation, but rather to reassure our friends and buttress our efforts at deterrence. 25:40 Mark Esper: We are also focused on internationalizing the response to Iran's aggression by encouraging increased burden sharing and cooperation with allies and partners from around the world. The International Maritime Security Construct, which protects freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and the more nascent integrated air and missile defense effort led by Saudi Arabia are two such examples. Through these activities, we are sending a clear message to Iran that the international community will not tolerate its malign activities. Hearing: Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, April 9, 2019 Witnesses Mike Pompeo Transcript: 15:15 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do you agree with me that having a stabilizing force in Northeastern Syria will prevent Iran from coming down and taking over their oil? Mike Pompeo: It is an important part of our overall Middle East strategy, including our counter-Iran strategy. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): So, containing Iran, would include you having a policy in Syria that would keep them from benefiting from our withdrawal. Mike Pompeo: That's right. It's one piece of it. Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Okay. Hearing: House Foreign Affairs Committee, May 23, 2018 Witnesses Mike Pompeo Transcript: 18:05 Mike Pompeo: On Monday I unveiled a new direction for the President’s Iran strategy. We will apply unprecedented financial pressure; coordinate with our DOD colleagues on deterrents efforts; support the Iranian people, perhaps most importantly; and hold out the prospect for a new deal with Iran. It simply needs to change its behavior. Speech: , Heritage Foundation, May 21, 2018 Transcript: Mike Pompeo: We will apply unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime. The sanctions are going back in full effect and new ones are coming. These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete. Mike Pompeo: As President Trump said two weeks ago, he is ready, willing and able to negotiate a new deal. But the deal is not the objective. Our goal is to protect the American people. Speech: Fox News, January 1, 2018 Transcript: John Bolton: Our goal should be regime change in Iran. Hearing: SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND MANAGEMENT and the SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUNTERTERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE of the House Homeland Security Committee, October 26, 2011 Witnesses: Reuel Marc Gerecht: CIA Officer who became a director at the Project for a New American Century. Also a former fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Supported the Afghanistan regime change and Iraq regime change. Currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, which was founded after 9/11 and it funds “experts” who pushed Congress to fight the “war on terror”. Transcript: 1:30:25 Reuel Marc Gerecht: Again, I have nothing against sanctions. I think there are lots of sanctions the United States should tighten. I'm in favor of most of what we might call central bank sanctions, the Iran oil free zone. There are lots of different things you can do, but again, I just emphasize the people who rule around Iran rose up essentially through killing people. They have maintained a coercive system. It's become more coercive with time, not less. They do not respond in the same rational economic ways that we do. Iran would not look like the country it is today if they were concerned about the bottom line. So, I don't think that you are going to really intimidate these people, get their attention unless you shoot somebody. It's a pretty blunt, but I don't think you get to get around it. I think for example, if we believe that the Guard Corps is responsible for this operation, then you should hold Qasem Soleimani responsible. Qasem Soleimani travels a lot. He's all over the place. Go get him. Either try to capture him or kill him. 1:32:10 Reuel Marc Gerecht: You could aggressively harrass many of their operations overseas. There's no doubt about that. But you would have to have a consensus to do that. I mean, the need is to say the White House, the CIA would have to be on board to do that. You would have to have the approval to do that. We all know it's Washington, D C these things are difficult to do. So you may find out that this type of covert action is actually much more difficult to do than going after, say Qasem Soleimani when he travels. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD207: State of Corporatism

13 januari 2020 | 87 min

It's 2020 and the government was actually funded before the new year! However, as always, dozens of bills hitched a ride into law attached to the government funding. In this episode, learn about some of the dingleberry laws that could effect your retirement savings, cable bills, and our partners in war. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran National Endowment for Democracy A Coup for Capitalism The “Democracies” Of Elliott Abrams Bills Articles/Documents Article: By Euractiv, January 9, 2020 Article: by Richard Barrington, MoneyRates.com, January 8, 2020 Article: Seeking Alpha, January 7, 2020 Article: By Kostis Geropoulos, New Europe, January 6, 2020 Article: By Bill Bischoff, MarketWatch, January 6, 2020 Article: By Hadjicostis, Associated Press, January 6, 2020 Article: By Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, January 6, 2020 Article: By Tyler Grubbs, The Journal Record, January 3, 2020 Article: By George Tzogopoulos, Jerusalem Press, January 2, 2020 Article: By John Psaropoulos, Aljazeera News, January 2, 2020 Article: By Jannis Papadimitriou, DW, January 2, 2020 Article: By Carol Schmidlin, FedSmith, January 2, 2020 Article: By Samantha Fields, MarketPlace, January 1, 2020 Article: By Ron Hurtibise, Wire Services, Dallas News, January 1, 2020 Article: By Jamie P. Hopkins, Kiplinger, December 31, 2019 Article: By GCT, Greek City Times, December 30, 2019 Article: By Amanda Umpierrez, PlanSponsor, December 26, 2019 Article: By Betsy Swan, Daily Beast, December 23, 2019 Article: Hamodia, December 22, 2019 Article: Ahval, December 20, 2019 Article: Aljazeera, December 18, 2019 Article: by Darla Mercado, CNBC, December 13, 2019 Article: Army Recognition, December 13, 2019 Article: by Patricia Zengerle, Reuters, December 11, 2019 Article: By Idan Zonshine, Jerusalem Press, December 7, 2019 Article: By Jo Harper, DW, December 7, 2019 Article: By John Psaropoulos, Aljazeera News, December 5, 2019 Article: Yogonet Gaming News, December 4, 2019 Article: By John Carter, PlanSponsor, November 19, 2019 Article: Yogonet Gaming News, October 10, 2019 Article: Navy Times, October 10, 2019 Article: By Ali Kucukgocmen, Reuters, October 10, 2019 Article: by Nick Kampouris, Greek Reporter, September 15, 2019 Article: By Bryan Pietsch, Reuters, Business Insider, August 7, 2019 Article: DW, July 21, 2019 Article: by Carlotta Gall, The New York Times, July 12, 2019 Article: by Stan Garrison Haithcock, the balance, June 25, 2019 Article: Aaron Mehta and Sebastian Sprenger, Defense News, May 30, 2019 Article: by Aaron Mehta, Defense News, May 29, 2019 Article: By Marcus Weisbgerber, Defense One, May 16, 2019 Article: By Marcus Weisbgerber, Defense One, May 16, 2019 Article: By TNH Staff, The National Herald, April 24, 2019 Article: By Liz Alderman, The New York Times, March 20, 2019 Article: By Coryanne Hicks and Philip Moeller, U.S. News, February 25, 2019 Article: By Nick Turse, The Intercept, May 24, 2018 Article: By Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post, April 13, 2016 Additional Resources Atlantic Council: Board Profile: Bae Systems Client Profile: New York Life Insurance: , OpenSecrets.org Contributions Profile for 2020 Election Cycle: , OpenSecrets.org Fundraising Stats: , OpenSecrets.org Prudential Financial: , OpenSecrets.org Profile: LinkedIn Raytheon: , cruchbase USAA: , OpenSecrets.org Vanguard Group: , OpenSecrets.org Sound Clip Sources Town Hall Conversation: , Atlantic Council, January 7, 2020 Speakers: Kyriakos Mitsotakis Transcript: Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Companies such as Cisco and Pfizer are already looking to set up research centers in Greece. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: There's always this advice that other heads of state and government gave me when I was in the position. They told me, make sure you do the reforms very quickly. And then when you look at how other governments have performed, usually that is not the case. We are going against the trends. And we've also said that for 2020, we will continue with this aggressive reform agenda. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: We're really looking to strengthen our ability to import LNG. We've expanded the LNG capacity of our main LNG terminal in Revithoussa outside Athens. But we're also looking to complete a floating storage and regasification unit and FSR EU outside the port of Alexandroupoli. I consider this port, this project absolutely critical for Greece. I've given it my full personal support. It will be an additional, source, entry point for LNG, also American LNG into the European market. And of course, as you pointed out, we have also signed the East Med pipeline, which is an ambitious longterm projects that will bring gas from the Eastern Mediterranean into the European markets. This is an important project for Europe, not just for Greece. Eastern Mediterranean is the only proven source of natural gas, new proven source of natural gas, that Europe has access to. For the next 30 years, at least, natural gas is going to be the transition fuel that will allow us to move towards a carbon neutral Europe. This is also important for Greece and our energy transition. And I think the countries of the region have taken the important geopolitical decision that the best way to get this gas out of the region is for a pipeline that will go through Cyprus, Greece and end up in Italy. So this is an important statement of intent. And we're very, very happy that we signed the project in Athens a few days ago. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: You're all aware of the fact that we are trying to unblock the old airport project, the Hellinikon project. And we've really worked very, very hard with our ministers to make sure that we remove all the unnecessary bureaucratic impediments in order for this investment to take place. We have two American companies bidding for the casino license. It's important that for the first time, some serious money is going to be invested in this project by American companies. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Started lowering our taxes, lower taxes on real estate, lowered taxes on corporation starting January 1st of this year. And I think there's a general sense in Greece that we are open for business. We're looking to aggressively attract foreign direct investment. And it's already beginning to happen. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: We will start the discussions to explore the possibility of Greece joining the F35 program. This is an important priority for me and the government. Once the F16 program is completed in 2024, we feel we will have the fiscal space. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: It is unacceptable within the context of an alliance to have one ally and member clearly provoke another ally, clearly referring to Turkey and the activities by President Erdogan. And that this is something which within the context of an alliance should not be brushed aside because the general approach of NATO has always been, Oh, okay, we have two ally members. They have their issues, let them sort it out, but I think we have a clear case to make that now the situation is rather different. Kyriakos Mitsotakis: We want to use the additional fiscal space in order to further cut taxes and use only 20% of the additional fiscal space. So 80% will be directed towards further cutting taxes, and 20% will be used towards targeted social spending to address extreme inequality and extreme poverty in Greece. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD206: Impeachment: The Evidence

23 december 2019 | 156 min

President Donald Trump has been impeached. In this episode, hear the key evidence against him presented by the witnesses called to testify in over 40 hours of hearings that took place in the "inquiry" phase of the impeachment. Using this episode, you will be able to judge for yourself how strong the case against President Trump really is as the country prepares for his Senate trial. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes What Do We Want In Ukraine? Ukraine Aid Bill Building WWIII Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE Impeachment? Articles/Documents Article: By Claudio Grisales and Dirdre Walsh, npr, December 18, 2019 Article: by Brian Naylor, npr, December 17, 2019 Article: BBC News, December 10, 2019 Article: By Brendan Fischer, Talking Points Memo, December 5, 2019 Article: by Emily Cochrane, The New York Times, December 4, 2019 Article: by Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, December 3, 2019 Article: By Tom Cleary, heavy November 24, 2019 Article: By Aaron Mak, Slate, November 20, 2019 Article: By Robert W. Merry, The American Conservative, November 19, 2019 Article: By Jim Zarroli, npr, November 19, 2019 Article: By Susan Crabtree, RealClear Politics, November 14, 2019 Article: By Lara Jakes, The New York Times, November 13, 2019 Article: By Katelyn Polantz, CNN, November 12, 2019 Article: By Desmond Butler, Michael Biesecker, Stephen Braun, and Richard Lardner, AP News, November 11, 2019 Article: By Caroline Kelly, CNN, November 7, 2019 Article: By Bart Jansen, USA Today, October 15, 2019 Article: By Aaron C. Davis, Josh Dawsey, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, and Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post, October 14, 201 Article: By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect, October 8, 2019 Article: by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: By Todd Prince, RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, September 15, 2019 Transcript: Rev, September 24, 2019 Article: By Caitlin Emma and Connor O'Brien, Politico, August 28, 2019 Article: by John Bresnahan, Jennifer Scholtes and Marianne Levine, Politico, August 22, 2019 Article: By Isabelle Hore-Thorburn, High Snobiety, August 14, 2019 Document: August 12, 2019 Article: By Ruslan Pukhov, Defense News, March 28, 2019 Article: By Kenneth Rapoza, Forbes, March 26, 2019 Article: by Chris Kanthan, Nation of Change, August 15, 2018 Article: by Eric Zuesse, Strategic Culture Foundation, June 3, 2018 Article: by Kenzi Abou-Sabe, Tom Winter and Max Tucker, NBC News, June 27, 2017 Article: by Julia Ioffe, The Atlantic, March 24, 2017 Article: By David Morrison, Huffington Post, October 3, 2014 Article: By Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, September 14, 2014 Article: By Seumas Milne, Guardian, April 30, 2014 Article: By David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, November 21, 2013 Article: By Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013 Article: By Kathleen Holzwart Sprehe, Pew Research Center, March 29, 2010 Article: By Mara D. Bellaby, The Associated Press, Washington Post Archive, June 6, 2006 Article: By Michael McFaul, The Washington Post, December 21, 2004 Article: By Jennifer 8. Lee, The Washington Post, May 11, 2003 Additional Resources Bill Summary: Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: Biography.com, Updated December 16, 2019 Biography: , U.S. Department of State Biography: , U.S. Department of State Biographies: , Center For US Ukrainian Relations Explanatory Statement: Explanatory Statement: State Department Explanatory Statement: Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 Explanatory Statement: State Department Hearing: U.S. House Committee on The Judiciary Profile: LinkedIn Profile: LinkedIn Profile: LinkedIn Public Library of US Diplomacy: Wikileaks, November 17, 2006 USIP: United States Institute of Peace USIP: United States Institute of Peace The Origins of USIP: United States Institute of Peace Video: , YouTube, March 12, 2014 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, December 6, 2019 Witnesses General John M. Keane Mr. Shawn Brimley Dr. Robert Kagan Transcript: 55:55 Robert Kagan: But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated. CNN Town Hall: , CNN, December 5, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi Transcript: Questioner: So, Ms, Pelosi. You resisted calls for the impeachment of president Bush in 2006 and president Trump following the Muller report earlier this year, this time is different. Why did you oppose it? Why did you oppose impeachment in the past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our president now? Pelosi: Thank you. I thank you for bringing up the question about, because when I became speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach president Bush on the strength of the war in Iraq, which I vehemently opposed. And I say it again, I said it other places. That was my wheelhouse. I was intelligence. I was a ranking member on the intelligence committee, even before I became part of the leadership of gang of four. So I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn't there. They had to show us, they had to show the gang of four. All the intelligence they had, the intelligence did not show that that was the case. So I knew it was a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was in my view, not a ground for impeachment. They won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think, people think that it was the right thing to do. People think Iraq had something to do with the 9/11. I mean, it's appalling what they did. But I did and I said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it forward. They had impeached bill Clinton for personal indiscretion and misrepresenting about it and some of these same people are saying, Oh, this doesn't rise to impeachment or that right there. And impeaching Bill Clinton for being stupid in terms of something like that. I mean, I love him. I think it was a great president, but being stupid in terms of that and what would somebody do not to embarrass their family, but in any event, they did Bill Clinton. Now they want me to do George this. I just didn't want it to be a way of life in our country. As far as the Muller report or there was a good deal of the academic setting and a thousand legal experts wrote a statement that said, the Muller Report impeach...is what's in there as an impeachable offense? So much of what's in the Muller report will be more clear once some of the court cases are resolved, but it wasn't so clear to the public. The Ukraine, this removed all doubt. It was self evident that the president undermined our national security, jeopardize the integrity of our elections as he violated his oath of office. There's just... That's something that cannot be ignored. Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, December 4, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses Professor Noah Feldman Professor Pamela Karlan Professor Michael Gerhardt Professor Jonathan Turley Transcript: 1:41:00 Michael Gerhardt: The gravity of the president's misconduct is apparent when we compare it to the misconduct of the one president resigned from office to avoid impeachment conviction and removal. The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon who resigned a few days later. The first article charged him with obstruction of justice. If you read the Muller report, it identifies a number of facts. I won't lay them out here right now that suggest the president himself has obstructed justice. If you look at the second article of impeachment approved against Richard Nixon, it charged him with abuse of power for ordering the heads of the FBI, IRS, and CIA to harass his political enemies. In the present circumstance, the president is engaged in a pattern of abusing the trust, placing him by the American people, by soliciting foreign countries, including China, Russia, and Ukraine, to investigate his political opponents and interfere on his behalf and elections in which he is a candidate. The third article approved against president Nixon charged that he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. In the present circumstance, the president has refused to comply with and directed at least 10 others in his administration not to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas, including Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and acting chief of staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney. As Senator Lindsey Graham now chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said when he was a member of the house on the verge of impeaching president Clinton, the day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury. That is a perfectly good articulation of why obstruction of Congress is impeachable. 2:02:30 Norm Eisen: Professor Feldman, what is abuse of power? Noah Feldman: Abuse of power is when the president uses his office, takes an action that is part of the presidency, not to serve the public interest, but to serve his private benefit. And in particular, it's an abuse of power if he does it to facilitate his reelection or to gain an advantage that is not available to anyone who is not the president. Noah Feldman: Sir, why is that impeachable conduct? Noah Feldman: If the president uses his office for personal gain, the only recourse available under the constitution is for him to be impeached because the president cannot be as a practical matter charged criminally while he is in office because the department of justice works for the president. So the only mechanism available for a president who tries to distort the electoral process for personal gain is to impeach him. That is why we have impeachment. 2:09:15 Norm Eisen: Professor Gerhardt, does a high crime and misdemeanor require an actual statutory crime? Michael Gerhardt: No, it plainly does not. Everything we know about the history of impeachment reinforces the conclusion that impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes. And again, not all crimes are impeachable offenses. We look at, again, at the context and gravity of the misconduct. 2:35:15 Michael Gerhardt: The obstruction of Congress is a problem because it undermines the basic principle of the constitution. If you're going to have three branches of government, each of the branches has to be able to do its job. The job of the house is to investigate impeachment and to impeach. A president who says, as this president did say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process robs a coordinate branch of government. He robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment. When you add to that the fact that the same president says, my Department of Justice cannot charge me with a crime. The president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. I don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough. A president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law. Now, putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody. 3:15:30 Jonathan Turley: I'd also caution you about obstruction. Obstruction is a crime also with meaning. It has elements. It has controlling case authority. The record does not establish obstruction. In this case, that is what my steam colleagues said was certainly true. If you accept all of their presumptions, it would be obstruction, but impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions. That's the problem. When you move towards impeachment on this abbreviated schedule that has not been explained to me - why you want to set the record for the fastest impeachment. Fast is not good for impeachment. Narrow, fast, impeachments have failed. Just ask Johnson. So the obstruction issue is an example of this problem. And here's my concern. The theory being put forward is that President Trump obstructed Congress by not turning over material requested by the committee and citations have been made to the third article of the Nixon impeachment. Now, first of all, I want to confess, I've been a critic of the third article, the Nixon impeachment my whole life. My hair catches on fire every time someone mentions the third article. Why? Because you would be replicating one of the worst articles written on impeachment. Here's the reason why - Peter Radino's position as Chairman of Judiciary was that Congress alone decides what information may be given to it - alone. His position was that the courts have no role in this. And so by that theory, any refusal by a president based on executive privilege or immunities would be the basis of impeachment. That is essentially the theory that's being replicated today. President Trump has gone to the courts. He's allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two. You're saying article one gives us complete authority that when we demand information from another branch, it must be turned over or we'll impeach you in record time. Now making that worse is that you have such a short investigation. It's a perfect storm. You set an incredibly short period, demand a huge amount of information and when the president goes to court, you then impeach him. In Nixon, it did go to the courts and Nixon lost, and that was the reason Nixon resigned. He resigned a few days after the Supreme Court ruled against him in that critical case. But in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. It didn't say, "You had no right coming to us, don't darken our doorstep again." It said, "We've heard your arguments. We've heard Congress's arguments and you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress." Do you know what that did for the Judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. Now recently there's some rulings against president Trump including a ruling involving Don McGahn. Mr. Chairman, I testified in front of you a few months ago and if you recall, we had an exchange and I encouraged you to bring those actions and I said I thought you would win and you did. And I think it's an important win for this committee because I don't agree with President Trump's argument in that case. But that's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues in order and unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough. And I'll say just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. 3:26:40 Jonathan Turley: There's a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes, and it's obvious it's not that you can't impeach on a non-crime. You can, in fact. Non-crimes had been part of past impeachments. It's just that they've never gone up alone or primarily as the basis of impeachment. That's the problem here. If you prove a quid pro quo that you might have an impeachable offense, but to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. So why is that the case? The reason is that crimes have an established definition and case law. So there's a concrete, independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political, that this is a president who did something they could not do. You can't say the president is above the law. If you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established. 3:39:35 Jonathan Turley: This is one of the thinnest records ever to go forward on impeachment. I mean the Johnson record one can can debate because this was the fourth attempt at an impeachment, but this is certainly the thinnest of a modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which was is almost wafer thin in comparison, and it has left doubts - not just in the minds of people supporting president Trump - now it's in the minds of people like myself about what actually occurred. There's a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don't know, but it's not in this record. I agree with my colleagues. We've all read the record and I just come to a different conclusion. I don't see proof of a quid pro quo no matter what my presumptions, assumptions or bias might be. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 21, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses Dr. Fiona Hill David Holmes Transcript: 44:45 David Holmes: Our work in Ukraine focused on three policy priorities: peace and security, economic growth and reform and anti-corruption and rule of law. These policies match the three consistent priorities of the Ukrainian people since 2014 as measured in public opinion polling, namely an end to the conflict with Russia that restores national unity and territorial integrity, responsible economic policies that deliver European standards of growth and opportunity and effective and impartial rule of law, institutions that deliver justice in cases of high level official corruption. Our efforts on this third policy priority merit special mention because it was during Ambassador Yovanovitch's tenure that we achieved the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases. 51:00 David Holmes: It quickly became clear that the White House was not prepared to show the level of support for the Zelensky administration that we had originally anticipated. In early May, Mr Giuliani publicly alleged that Mr. Zelensky was "surrounded by enemies of the U S president" and canceled a visit to Ukraine. Shortly thereafter we learned that Vice President Pence no longer plan to lead the presidential delegation to the inauguration. The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official presidential delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five. Secretary Perry as its head, Special Representative for Ukraine and negotiations Kurt Volker representing the State Department, National Security Council director Alex Vindman representing the White House, temporary acting Charge D'affairs Joseph Pennington representing the Embassy, and Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. While Ambassador Sondland's mandate as ambassador as the accredited ambassador to the European Union did not cover individual member states, let alone non-member countries like Ukraine, he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the President and Mr. Mulvaney for this group. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, and Ambassador Volker later styled themselves "the three Amigos" and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy and engagement with the Zelensky administration. 53:30 David Holmes: The inauguration took place on May 20th and I took notes in the delegations meeting with President Zelensky. During the meeting, Secretary Perry passed President Zelensky a list that Perry described as "people he trusts." Secretary Perry told President Zelensky that he could seek advice from the people on this list on issues of energy sector reform, which was the topic of subsequent meetings between Secretary Perry and key Ukrainian energy sector contacts. Embassy personnel were excluded from some of these later meetings by Secretary Perry's staff. 56:50 David Holmes: Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, the commercial deals, and the anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents. 58:10 David Holmes: We became concerned that even if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky could occur, it would not go well. And I discussed with embassy colleagues whether we should stop seeking a meeting all together. While the White House visit was critical to the Zelensky administration, a visit that failed to send a clear and strong signal of support likely would be worse for President Zelensky than no visit at all. 58:30 David Holmes: Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine since 2014. This assistance has provided crucial material and moral support to Ukraine and its defensive war with Russia and has helped Ukraine build its armed forces virtually from scratch into arguably the most capable and battle-hardened land force in Europe. I've had the honor of visiting the main training facility in Western Ukraine with members of Congress and members of this very committee, Ms. Stefanik, where we witnessed firsthand us national guard troops along with allies conducting training for Ukrainian soldiers. Since 2014 national guard units from California, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have trained shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian counterparts. 59:30 David Holmes: Given the history of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and the bipartisan recognition of its importance, I was shocked when on July 18th and office of management and budget staff members surprisingly announced the hold on Ukraine security assistance. The announcement came toward the end of a nearly two hour national security council secure video conference call, which I participated in from the embassy conference room. The official said that the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney with no further explanation. 1:03:30 David Holmes: The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides. At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discuss topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone and I heard him announce himself several times along the lines of Gordon Sondland holding for the president. It appeared to be he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistance. And I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the president's voice through the ear piece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume. I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from Kiev. I heard president Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state President Zelensky "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?" and Sondland replied that "He's going to do it" adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president. The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts on behalf of the president to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden. I can only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the president that the rapper was "kind of effed there and should have pled guilty." He recommended that the president "Wait until after the sentencing or we'll only make it worse", and he added that the president should let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker tape when he comes home. Ambassador Sondland further told the president that Sweden quote "should have released him on your word, but that you can tell the Kardashians you tried." 1:15:00 David Holmes: Today, this very day, marks exactly six years since throngs pro-Western Ukrainians spontaneously gathered on Kiev's independence square, to launch what became known as the Revolution of Dignity. While the protest began in opposition to a turn towards Russia and away from the West, they expanded over three months to reject the entire corrupt, repressive system that had been sustained by Russian influence in the country. Those events were followed by Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and invasion of Ukraine's Eastern Donbass region, and an ensuing war that to date has cost almost 14,000 lives. 1:17:00 David Holmes: Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. 2:00:15 David Holmes: In the meeting with the president, Secretary Perry as head of the delegation opened the meeting with the American side, and had a number of points he made. And, and during that period, he handed over a piece of paper. I did not see what was on the paper, but Secretary Perry described what was on the paper as a list of trusted individuals and recommended that President Zelensky could draw from that list for advice on energy sector reform issues. Daniel Goldman: Do you know who was on that list? Holmes: I didn't see the list. I don't know other colleagues. There are other people who've been in the mix for a while on that set of issues. Other people, Secretary Perry has mentioned as being people to consult on reform. Goldman: And are they Americans? Holmes: Yes. 4:18:15 Fiona Hill: As I understood there'd been a directive for a whole scale review of our foreign policy assistance and the ties between our foreign policy objectives and the assistance. This has been going on actually for many months. And in the period when I was wrapping up my time there, there had been more scrutiny than specific assistance to specific sets of countries as a result of that overall review. 4:21:10 Fiona Hill: I asked him quite bluntly in a meeting that we had in June of 2019. So this is after the presidential inauguration when I'd seen that he had started to step up in much more of a proactive role on a Ukraine. What was his role here? And he said that he was in charge of Ukraine. And I said, "Well, who put you in charge Ambassador Sondland?" And he said, "The president." Stephen Castor: Did surprise you when he told you that. Fiona Hill:It did surprise me. We'd had no directive. We hadn't been told this. Ambassador Bolton had never indicated in any way that he thought that Ambassador Sondland was playing a leading role in Ukraine. 4:36:30 Fiona Hill: And one of Ukraine's Achilles heel, in addition to, it's military disadvantage with Russia, is in fact, energy. Ukraine remains for now the main transit point for a Russian oil and gas and pipelines to Europe. And this has been manipulated repeatedly, especially since 2006, by the Russian government. And in fact, I mean many of you here will remember, in the Reagan era, there was a huge dispute between the United States and Europe about about whether it made sense for Europe to build pipelines from the then Soviet union to bring gas to European markets. 4:55:30 David Holmes: United States has provided combined civilian and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014 of about $3 billion plus to $1 billion - three $1 billion loan guarantees that's not...those get paid back largely. So just over $3 billion, the Europeans at the level of the European Union and plus the member States combined since 2014. My understanding and have provided a combined $12 billion to Ukraine. 5:02:05 Fiona Hill: And so when I came in Gordon Sondland was basically saying, "Well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. I have a deal here with the Chief of Staff, Mulvaney there will be a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and Burisma" and I cut it off immediately there because by this point, having heard Mr. Giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues, that he was asserting. By this point, it was clear that Burisma was code for the Bidens because Giuliani was laying it out there. I could see why Colonel Vindman was alarmed and he said this is inappropriate with the National Security Council. We can't be involved in this. 5:03:45 Fiona Hill: And that's when I pushed back on Ambassador Sondland and said, "Look, I know there's differences about whether one, we should have this meeting. We're trying to figure out whether we should have it after the Ukrainian, democratic, sorry, parliamentary elections, the Rada elections", which by that point I think had been set for July 21st. It must have been, cause this is July 10th at this point. And Ambassador Bolton would like to wait until after that to basically see whether President Zelensky gets the majority in the parliament, which would enable him to form a cabinet. And then we can move forward. 6:05:50 Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): Dr. Hill, turning back to you, there's been discussion about the process of scheduling the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump, and you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule this meeting until after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct, yes. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And that's because there was speculation in all analytical circles, both in Ukraine and outside the Ukraine, that Zelensky might not be able to get the majority that he needed to form a cabinet, correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY): And you also testified that another aspect of the NSC hesitancy to schedule this meeting was based on broader concerns related to Zelensky's ability to implement anti-corruption reforms. And this was in specific relation to Ukrainian oligarchs who basically were the owner of the TV company that Mr. Zelensky his program had been a part of. Is that correct? Fiona Hill: That is correct. 6:21:40 Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): One of them is headlined "After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine." The other one is titled "Wall Street Journal, federal prosecutors probe Giuliani's links to Ukrainian energy projects." Mr. Holmes. Thank you, chairman. You indicated that Secretary Perry, when he was in the Ukraine, had private meetings with Ukrainians. Before he had those private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, I believe, he had presented a list of American advisers for the Ukraine energy sector. Do you know who was on that list? David Holmes: Sir, I didn't see the names on the list myself. Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): Do you know if Alex Cranberg and Michael Blazer were on that list? David Holmes: I have since heard that Michael Blazer is on the list. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses Laura Cooper David Hale Transcript: 45:30 Laura Cooper: I have also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense program of defense reform to ensure the longterm sustainability of US investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian military from a Soviet model to a NATO inter-operable force. 45:50 Laura Cooper: The National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative or USAI funds, a provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key DOD advisers, the Department of Defense in coordination with the Department of State certified in May, 2019 that Ukraine had "taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability." 47:15 Laura Cooper: Let me say at the outset that I have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. 48:05 Laura Cooper: I and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent, because it takes time to obligate that amount of money. And my understanding was that the money was legally required to be obligated by September 30th to the end of the fiscal year. 49:15 Laura Cooper: I received a series of updates and in a September 5th update, I and other senior defense department leaders were informed that over a $100,000,000 could not be obligated by September 30th. 49:45 Laura Cooper: After the decision to release the funds on September 11th of this year, my colleagues across the DOD security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to be able to ultimately obligate about 86% of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, more than they had originally estimated they would be able to. Due to a provision in September's continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the unobligated funds from fiscal year 2019, we ultimately will be able to obligate all of the USAI funds. 51:04 Laura Cooper: Since my deposition, I have again reviewed my calendar, and the only meeting where I recall a Ukrainian official raising the issue with me is on September 5th at the Ukrainian independence day celebration. 51:45 Laura Cooper: Specifically, on the issue of Ukraine's knowledge of the hold or of Ukraine, asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance. My staff showed me two unclassified emails that they received from the state department. One was received on July 25th at 2:31 PM. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance. The second email was received on July 25th at 4:25 PM that email said that the Hill knows about the FMF situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian embassy. I did not receive either of these emails. My staff does not recall informing me about them and I do not recall being made aware of their content at the time. 53:04 Laura Cooper: On July 3rd at 4:23 PM they received an email from the State Department stating that they had heard that the CN is currently being blocked by OMB. This apparently refers to the congressional notification State would send for Ukraine FMF. I have no further information on this. 53:20 Laura Cooper: On July 25th a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance. Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was on USAI. The OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, but the staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward on USAI, but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State regarding the FMF. 1:02:40 David Hale: We've often heard at the state department that the President of the United States wants to make sure that a foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure that it's truly in US national interests, and that we evaluated continuously to meet certain criteria that the president's established. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And since his election, is it fair to say that the president Trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distributed? David Hale: Yes. The NSC launched a foreign assistance review process, sometime, I think it was late August, early September, 2018. 1:04:30 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld from it, is that correct? David Hale: Correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): In the past year, was aid held withheld from Pakistan? David Hale:Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Why was aid withheld from Pakistan? David Hale: Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the Pakistani government towards certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with United States. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And in the past year was aid also withheld from Honduras. David Hale: Aid was withheld from three States in central Northern central America, yes. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): The past year was aide withheld from Lebanon? David Hale: Yes sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And when aid was first held withheld from Lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld? David Hale: No. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): So having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon. I would say it is not the normal way that we function... Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But it does happen. David Hale: It does happen. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): And is it true that when aid was being withheld from Lebanon that was at the same time aid was being withheld from Ukraine? David Hale: Correct, sir. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):And, you've testified that the aid to Lebanon still hasn't been released, is that right? David Hale: That is correct. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): Alright. 1:26:05 Laura Cooper: Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged to Ukraine. They also denied Ukraine access to its Naval fleet at the time. And to this day, Russia is building a capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region. 1:59:40 Laura Cooper: There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces. The first is the foreign military finance system, which is a State Department authority and countries around the world have this authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. There's also the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. That's a DOD authority. Unlike the State authority, the DOD authority is only a one year authority. And then third, there's an opportunity for defense sales. And that is something that we're working with Ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase U.S. equipment. But the javelin specifically was provided under FMF initially and now the Ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. 2:00:35 Rep. Will Hurd (TX): And there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? Laura Cooper: Not to my understanding, no. 2:04:15 Laura Cooper: There were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. And the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. The second is a reprogramming action that the Department of Defense would do... Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX): In both of those would require congressional notice. There would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify Congress. As far as, you know, was there ever any notice that was sent out to Congress? Laura Cooper: Sir, I did express that, that I believed it would require a notice to Congress and that then there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. 2:07:41 Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX): But you can't say one way or another whether the inquiries in these emails were about the whole, is that fair? Laura Cooper: I cannot say for certain. Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX):Right, and you can't say one way or another, whether the Ukrainians knew about the whole before August 28th, 2019 when it was reported in Politico, correct? Laura Cooper: Sir, I can just tell you that it's the recollection of my staff that they likely knew, but no, I do not have a certain data point to offer you. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 20, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witness Gordon Sondland Transcript: 54:00 Gordon Sondland: As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 Election DNC server, and Burisma. 54:30 Gordon Sondland: Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. 55:00 Gordon Sondland: I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. 55:10 Gordon Sondland: I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. Still haven't to this day. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. 59:40 Gordon Sondland: During the Zelensky inauguration, on May 20th the US delegation developed a very positive view of the Ukraine government. We were impressed by President Zelensky's desire to promote a stronger relationship with the United States. We admired his commitment to reform, and we were excited about the possibility of Ukraine making the changes necessary to support a greater Western economic investment. And we were excited that Ukraine might, after years and years of lip service, finally get serious about addressing its own well known corruption problems. 1:01:15 Gordon Sondland: Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to quote, "talk with Rudy." We understood that talk with Rudy meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then as I do now, that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters. Nonetheless, based on the president's direction we were faced with a choice, we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a white house visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest, or we could do as president Trump had directed and talk with Rudy. We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. 1:12:05 Gordon Sondland: After the Zelensky meeting, I also met with Zelensky's senior aide, Andre Yermak. I don't recall the specifics of our conversation, but I believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. 1:12:15 Gordon Sondland: Also, on July 26 shortly after our Kiev meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump. The White House, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations. I knew that investigations were important to President Trump. We did not discuss any classified information. Other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It's true that the president speaks loudly at times and it's also true, I think, we primarily discussed ASAP Rocky. It's true that the president likes to use colorful language. Anyone who has met with him at any reasonable amount of time knows this well. I cannot remember the precise details. Again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call and the July 26 call did not strike me as significant. At the time, actually, actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. 1:14:10 Gordon Sondland: I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. 1:23:10 Gordon Sondland: There was a September 1st meeting with President Zelensky in Warsaw. Unfortunately, President Trump's attendance at the Warsaw meeting was canceled due to Hurricane Dorian. Vice President Pence attended instead. I mentioned Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. I recall mentioning that before the Zelensky meeting. During the actual meeting, President Zelensky raised the issue of security assistance directly with Vice President Pence and the vice president said that he would speak to President Trump about it. Based on my previous communication with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief pull aside conversation that happened. Within a few seconds, I told Mr. Yermak that I believe that the resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. 1:38:30 Gordon Sondland: I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can't find the records and they won't provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open ended question, Mr. Chairman. "What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?" And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood and he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell them Zelensky to do the right thing. Something to that effect. 1:43:00 Gordon Sondland: Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. 2:06:25 Gordon Sondland: President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aide was my own personal guess based again, on your analogy, two plus two equals four. 2:10:30 Gordon Sondland: Again, I don't recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance ever. 2:44:00 Stephen Castor: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? Gordon Sondland: No. Okay. Stephen Castor: So the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? Gordon Sondland: No. Stephen Castor: The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting? Gordon Sondland: Personally, no. 3:01:10 Stephen Castor: And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies? Gordon Sondland: That I'm definitely aware of. Stephen Castor: And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the president. Gordon Sondland: Yes, that's correct. Stephen Castor: And how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold? Gordon Sondland: I don't... Stephen Castor: But yet you speculate that there was a link to the this announcement. Gordon Sondland: I presumed it, yes. Stephen Castor: Okay. 3:07:05 Stephen Castor: And when you first started discussing the concerns the president had with corruption, Burisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned, right. Gordon Sondland: It was generic, as I think I testified to Chairman Schiff, it was generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in Ukraine. Stephen Castor: But other companies came up, didn't they? Gordon Sondland: I don't know if they were mentioned specifically. It might've been Naftagas because we were working on another issue with Naftagas. So that might've been one of them. Stephen Castor: At one point in your deposition, I believe you, you said, "Yeah, Naftagas comes up at every conversation." Is that fair? Gordon Sondland: Probably. 3:14:55 Gordon Sondland: I think once that Politico article broke, it started making the rounds that, if you can't get a White House meeting without the statement, what makes you think you're going to get a $400 million check? Again, that was my presumption. Stephen Castor: Okay, but you had no evidence to prove that, correct? Gordon Sondland: That's correct. 3:44:10 Daniel Goldman: It wasn't really a presumption, you heard from Mr. Giuliani? Gordon Sondland: Well, I didn't hear from Mr. Giuliani about the aid. I heard about the Burisma and 2016. Daniel Goldman: And you understood at that point, as we discussed, two plus two equals four, that the aid was there as well. Gordon Sondland: That was the problem, Mr. Goldman. No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. 5:02:10 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): What did Mr. Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the President of the United States? Gordon Sondland: Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before I was in touch with Mr. Giuliani directly. So this all came through Mr. Volcker and others. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): So Mr. Volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States. Gordon Sondland: Correct. 5:20:40 Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president and said it's because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says "Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid." Is that your testimony today, Mr. Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations the aid? Cause I don't think you're saying that. Gordon Sondland: I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump... Rep. Michael Turner (OH): So no one told you, not just the president...Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody - Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct? Gordon Sondland: I think I already testified. Rep. Michael Turner (OH): No, answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Cause if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong. And the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that president Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no? Gordon Sondland: Yes. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses Kurt Volker Timothy Morrison Transcript: 43:20 Timothy Morrison: I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one. United States aids Ukraine and her people, so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be. 48:00 Kurt Volker: At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know, from the extensive realtime documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions. 50:20 Kurt Volker: At the time I took the position in the summer of 2017 there were major complicated questions swirling in public debate about the direction of US policy towards Ukraine. Would the administration lifts sanctions against Russia? Would it make some kind of grand bargain with Russia in which it would trade recognition of Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory for some other deal in Syria or elsewhere? Would the administration recognize Russia's claimed annexation of Crimea? Will this just become another frozen conflict? There are also a vast number of vacancies in key diplomatic positions. So no one was really representing the United States in the negotiating process about ending the war in Eastern Ukraine. 51:20 Kurt Volker: We changed the language commonly used to describe Russia's aggression. I was the administration's most outspoken public figure highlighting Russia's invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine, calling out Russia's responsibility to end the war. 54:45 Kurt Volker: The problem was that despite the unanimous positive assessment and recommendations of those of us who were part of the US presidential delegation that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky, President Trump was receiving a different negative narrative about Ukraine and President Zelensky. That narrative was fueled by accusations from Ukraine's then prosecutor general and conveyed to the president by former mayor Rudy Giuliani. As I previously told this committee, I became aware of the negative impact this was having on our policy efforts when four of us, who were a part of the presidential delegation to the inauguration, met as a group with President Trump on May 23rd. We stressed our finding that President Zelensky represented the best chance for getting Ukraine out of the mire of corruption and had been in for over 20 years. We urged him to invite President Zelensky to the White House. The president was very skeptical. Given Ukraine's history of corruption. That's understandable. He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country full of terrible people. He said they tried to take me down. In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations with Mayor Giuliani. It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new president, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view. Within a few days, on May 29th, President Trump indeed signed the congratulatory letter to President Zelensky, which included an invitation to the president to visit him at the White House. However, more than four weeks passed and we could not nail down a date for the meeting. I came to believe that the president's long-held negative view towards Ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting, much as we had seen in our oval office discussion. 57:35 Kurt Volker: President Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak approached me several days later to ask to be connected to Mayor Giuliani. I agreed to make that connection. I did so because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those like Mayor Giuliani, who believes such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of us support. Ukrainians believed that if they could get their own narrative across in a way that convinced Mayor Giuliani that they were serious about fighting corruption and advancing reform, Mayor Giuliani would convey that assessment to President Trump, thus correcting the previous negative narrative. That made sense to me and I tried to be helpful. I made clear to the Ukrainians that Mayor Giuliani was a private citizen, the president's personal lawyer, and not representing the US government. Likewise, in my conversations with Mayor Giuliani, I never considered him to be speaking on the president's behalf or giving instructions, rather, the information flow was the other way. From Ukraine to Mayor Giuliani in the hopes that this would clear up the information reaching President Trump. 1:00:15 Kurt Volker: I connected Mayor Giuliani and Andriy Yermak by text and later by phone they met in person on August 2nd, 2019. In conversations with me following that meeting, which I did not attend, Mr. Giuliani said that he had stressed the importance of Ukraine conducting investigations into what happened in the past, and Mr. Yermak stressed that he told Mr. Giuliani it is the government's program to root out corruption and implement reforms, and they would be conducting investigations as part of this process anyway. 1:00:45 Kurt Volker: Mr. Giuliani said he believed that the Ukrainian president needed to make a statement about fighting corruption and that he had discussed this with Mr. Yermak. I said, I did not think that this would be a problem since that is the government's position. Anyway, I followed up with Mr. Yermak and he said that they would indeed be prepared to make a statement. 1:02:10 Kurt Volker: On August 16th, Mr. Yermak shared a draft with me, which I thought looked perfectly reasonable. It did not mention Burisma or 2016 elections, but was generic. Ambassador Sondland I had a further conversation with Mr. Giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in Ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to Burisma and 2016 and again, there was no mention of Vice President Biden in these conversations. 1:02:40 Kurt Volker: Ambassador Sondland and I discussed these points and I edited the statement drafted by Mr. Yermak to include these points to see how it looked. I then discussed it further with Mr. Yermak. He said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that since Mr. Lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention Burisma or 2016 and I agreed. And the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. These were the last conversations I had about this statement, which were on or about August 17 to 18. 1:04:00 Kurt Volker: At the time I was connecting Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani and discussing with Mr. Yermak and Ambassador Sondland a possible statement that could be made by the Ukrainian president, I did not know of any linkage between the hold on security assistance and Ukraine pursuing investigations. No one had ever said that to me, and I never conveyed such a linkage to the Ukrainians. 1:04:40 Kurt Volker: I believe the Ukrainians became aware of the hold on August 29th and not before. That date is the first time any of them asked me about the hold by forwarding an article that had been published in Politico. 1:42:30 Daniel Goldman: Your testimony, that based on the text that you wrote, linking the investigations and the 2016 election on July 25th to the White House meeting, you're saying that by this point in August, with this back and forth, that you were unaware that this public statement was a condition for the White House meeting? Kurt Volker: I wouldn't have called it a condition. It's a nuance I guess. I viewed it as very helpful. If we could get this done, it would help improve the perception that President Trump and others had. And then we would get the date for a meeting. If we didn't have a statement, I wasn't giving up and thinking that, Oh, well then we'll never get a meeting. 1:44:00 Daniel Goldman: I want to move forward to September, and early September when the security assistance begins to more overtly be used as leverage to pressure the Ukrainians to conduct these investigations that President Trump wanted. Mr. Morrison, you accompanied Vice President Pence to Warsaw when he met with President Zelensky, is that right? Timothy Morrison: I was in Warsaw when the vice president was designated as the president's representative. I was accompanying Ambassador Bolton. Daniel Goldman: Understood. You were at the bilateral meeting with the vice president and President Zelensky, correct? Timothy Morrison: I was. Daniel Goldman: In that meeting, were the Ukrainians concerned about the hold on security clearance - military assistance rather. Timothy Morrison: Yes. Daniel Goldman: What did they say? Timothy Morrison: It was the first issue that President Zelensky raised with Vice President Pence. They were very interested. They talked about its importance to Ukraine. It's important to their relationship. Daniel Goldman: And what was Vice President Pence's response? Timothy Morrison: The vice president represented that it was a priority for him, and that we were working to address, and he characterized President Trump's concerns about the state of corruption in Ukraine. And the president's prioritization of getting the Europeans to contribute more to security sector assistance. Daniel Goldman: And did he directly explain to the Ukrainians that those were the actual reasons for the holds or was he just commenting on general concerns of the president? Timothy Morrison: I don't know that he necessarily acknowledged a hold. We mentioned that we were reviewing the assistance and that that's the way I heard it. That's the way I would characterize it. And those were the points he raised to help President Zelensky understand where we were in our process. Daniel Goldman: And to your knowledge though, on sort of the staff level as the coordinator of all the interagency process, you are not aware of any review of the Ukraine security assistance money, were you? Timothy Morrison: Well, we had been running a review. We had been running an interagency process to provide the president the information that I had been directed to generate, for the president's consideration as to the state of interagency support for continuing Ukraine security sector assistance. Daniel Goldman: And the entire integrate agency supported the continuation of the security assistance, isn't that right? Timothy Morrison: That is correct. 1:46:50 Daniel Goldman: Now after this larger meeting with Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, you testified at your deposition that you saw Ambassador Sondland immediately go over and pull Andriy Yermak aside and have a conversation. Is that right? Timothy Morrison: President Zelensky left the room, Vice President Pence left the room, and in sort of an anteroom, Ambassador Sondland and Presidential Advisor Yermak had this discussion. Yes. Daniel Goldman: And what did Ambassador Sondland say to tell you that he told Mr. Yermak? Timothy Morrison: That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. 1:49:00 Daniel Goldman: A few days later on September 7th, you spoke again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with President Trump. Isn't that right? Timothy Morrison: That sounds correct. Yes. Daniel Goldman: What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that President Trump said to him? Timothy Morrison: If I recall this conversation correctly, this was where Ambassador Sondland relayed that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky had to make the statement and that he had to want to do it. Daniel Goldman: And by that point, did you understand that the statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations? Timothy Morrison: I think I did, yes. Daniel Goldman: And that was essentially a condition for the security assistance to be released. Timothy Morrison: I understood that that's what ambassador Sondland believed. 2:08:40 Stephen Castor: And you met with President Zelensky on, I believe it was August 29th, Timothy Morrison: Ambassador Bolton had a meeting with President Zelensky and I staffed that meeting. Stephen Castor: And that's right around the time when the Rada had met and they had started to push through their reforms. Timothy Morrison: As I recall, the meeting, the date of the meeting between Ambassador Bolton and President Zelensky was actually the first day of the new Rada. Stephen Castor: And, some of these reforms included, naming a new prosecutor general. Timothy Morrison: A new prosecutor general, a brand new cabinet, yes. Stephen Castor: And they pushed through some legislation that eliminated immunity for Rada members. Timothy Morrison: Yes, eliminating parliamentary immunity. Stephen Castor: And I believe you provided some color into this experience, this meeting, and you said that the Ukrainians had been up all night, working on some of these legislative initiatives. Timothy Morrison: Yes. Uh, the Ukrainians with whom we met were by all appearances exhausted from the pace of activity. Stephen Castor: And was Ambassador Bolton encouraged by the activity? Timothy Morrison: Yes, he was. Stephen Castor: And was the meeting altogether favorable? Timothy Morrison: Quite. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 19, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman Jennifer Williams Transcript: 50:30 Jennifer Williams: On August 29th, I learned that the vice president would be traveling to Poland to meet with President Zelensky on September 1st. At the September 1st meeting, which I attended, President Zelensky asked the vice president about news articles reporting a hold on U.S. security assistance for Ukraine. The vice president responded that Ukraine had the United States unwavering support and promised to relay their conversation to President Trump that night. During the September 1st meeting, neither the vice president nor President Zelensky mentioned the specific investigations discussed during the July 25th phone call. 1:06:45 Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): Let me turn if I can to the hold on security assistance, which I think you both testified you learned about in early July. Am I correct that neither of you were provided with a reason for why the president put a hold on security assistance to Ukraine? Jennifer Williams: My understanding was that OMB was reviewing the assistance to ensure it was in line with administration priorities, but it was not made more specific than that. Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): And Colonel Vindman? Alexander Vindman: That is consistent. We had...the review was to ensure it remained consistent with administration policies. 1:07:20 Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): Colonel Vindman, you attended a meeting in John Bolton's office on July 10th, where Ambassador Sondland interjected to respond to a question by senior Ukrainian officials about a White House visit. What did he say at that time? Alexander Vindman: To the best of my recollection, Ambassador Sondland said that in order to get a White House meeting, the Ukrainians would have to provide a deliverable, which is investigations, specific investigations. Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): And what was Ambassador's Bolton's response or reaction to that comment? Alexander Vindman: We had not completed all of the agenda items and we still had time for the meeting and Ambassador Bolton abruptly ended the meeting. 1:08:15 Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): Based on Ambassador Sondland's remark at the July 10th meeting, was it your clear understanding that the Ukrainians understood they had to commit to investigations President Trump wanted in order to get the White House meeting. Alexander Vindman: It may have not been entirely clear at that moment. Certainly Ambassador Sondland was a calling for these meetings and he had stated that his, this was developed per conversation with the chief of staff, Mr. Mick Mulvaney. But, the connection to the president wasn't clear at that point. 2:13:00 Stephen Castor: And President Zelensky's inauguration was May 20th, if I'm not mistaken. Jennifer Williams: Yes, that's correct. Stephen Castor: And you had about four days notice? Jennifer Williams: In the end, the Ukrainian parliament decided on May 16th to set the date for May 20th, that's correct. Stephen Castor: So you would acknowledge that that made it quite difficult for the vice president and the whole operation to mobilize and get over to Ukraine? Correct? Jennifer Williams: It would have been, but we had already stopped the trip planning by that point. Stephen Castor: And when did that happen? Jennifer Williams: Stopping the trip planning? on May 13th. Okay. Stephen Castor: And how did you hear about that? Jennifer Williams: I was called by a colleague in the chief, by the vice president's chief of staff's office and told to stop the trip planning. Stephen Castor: As I understand it, it was the, the assistant to the chief of staff? Jennifer Williams: That's correct. Stephen Castor: Okay. And so you didn't hear about it from General Kellogg or the chief of staff or... Jennifer Williams: Correct. Stephen Castor: Or the president or the vice president. You heard about it from Mr. Short's assistant. Jennifer Williams: That's right. Stephen Castor: And did you have any, any knowledge of the reasoning for stopping the trip? Jennifer Williams: I asked my colleague why we should stop trip planning and why the vice president would not be attending. And I was informed that the president had decided the vice president would not attend the inauguration. Stephen Castor: But do you know why the president decided? Jennifer Williams: No, she did not have that information. Stephen Castor: Okay. And ultimately the vice president went to Canada for a USMCA event during this window of time, correct? Jennifer Williams: Correct. Stephen Castor: So it's entirely conceivable that the president decided that he wanted the vice president to go to Canada on behalf of USMCA instead of doing anything else, Correct? Jennifer Williams: I'm really not in a position to speculate what the motivations were behind the president's decision. Stephen Castor: You know, the vice president has done quite a bit of USMCA events, right? Jennifer Williams: Absolutely, yes sir. 2:23:10 Stephen Castor: When you were, you went to Ukraine for the inauguration, correct? On the 20th. Alexander Vindman: Right. Stephen Castor: At any point during that trip, did Mr. Dani look offer you a position of defense minister with the Ukrainian government? Alexander Vindman: He did. Stephen Castor: And how many times did he do that? Alexander Vindman: I believe it was three times. Stephen Castor: And you have any reason why he asked you to do that? Alexander Vindman: I don't know. But, every single time I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the appropriate counterintelligence folks about this offer. Stephen Castor: I mean, Ukraine's a country that's experienced a war with Russia, certainly their minister of defense is a pretty key position for the Ukrainians. President Zelensky, Mr. Dani look to bestow that honor on you. At least asking you, I mean, that was a big honor. Correct. Alexander Vindman: I think it would be a great honor and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world, certainly in the Baltics, former officers and federal contractors, I believe it was an air force officer that became an administrator of defense. But I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler and I immediately dismissed these offers, did not entertain them. Stephen Castor: When he made this offer to you initially, did you leave the door open? Was there a reason that he had to come back and ask you a second and third time? Or was he just trying to convince you? Alexander Vindman: Yeah Council, you know what, the whole notion is rather comical that I was being asked to consider whether I'd want to be the minister of defense. I did not leave the door open at all, but, it is pretty funny for Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, which really isn't that senior, to be offered that illustrious a position. 3:44:00 Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Ms. Williams again, When did you first learn that the security assistance was being held up? The nearly $400 million that was referenced. Jennifer Williams: July 3rd. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And were you aware of any additional or did you attend any additional meetings in which that military assistance being withheld was discussed? Jennifer Williams: I did. I attended meetings on July 23rd and July 26th, where the security assistance hold was discussed. I believe it may have also been discussed on July 31st. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And, at that point, did anyone provide a specific reason for the hold? Jennifer Williams: In those meetings, the OMB representative reported that the assistance was being held at the direction of the White House chief of staff. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And did they give reasons beyond that it was being withheld by the White House chief of staff? Jennifer Williams: Not specifically. The reason given was that there was a ongoing review whether the funding was still in line with administration priorities. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Did anyone in any of those meetings or in any other subsequent discussion you had discuss the legality of withholding that aid. Jennifer Williams: There were discussions, I believe in the July 31st meeting and possibly prior as well, in terms of Defense and State Department officials were looking into how they would handle a situation which earmarked funding from Congress that was designated for Ukraine would be resolved if the funding continued to be held as we approached the end of the fiscal year. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And from what you witnessed, did anybody in the national security community support withholding the assistance? Jennifer Williams: No. 3:47:00 Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Did anyone, unto your understanding, raise the legality of withholding this assistance. Alexander Vindman: It was raised on several occasions. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And who raised those concerns? Alexander Vindman: So following the July 18th sub PCC, which is again what I coordinate or what I convene, at my level. There was a July 23rd, PCC that would have been conducted by Mr. Morrison. There were questions raised on as to the legality of the hold. Over the subsequent week, the issue was analyzed. And during the July 26th deputies...so the deputies from all the departments and agencies, there was an opinion rendered that it was, it was legal to, put the hold. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): It was, excuse me. Alexander Vindman: There was an opinion, legal, opinion rendered that it was, okay to, or that the hold was legal. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 15, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witness Marie Vanonvich Transcript: 49:15 Marie Yovanovitch: I worked to advance U.S. policy - fully embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike - to help Ukraine become a stable and independent democratic state with a market economy integrated into Europe. 50:05 Marie Yovanovitch: Ukraine, with an enormous landmass and a large population, has the potential to be a significant commercial and political partner for the United States, as well as a force multiplier on the security side. We see the potential and Ukraine, Russia sees, by contrast, sees the risk. The history is not written yet, but Ukraine could move out of Russia's orbit. And now Ukraine is a battleground for great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine's leadership. The U.S. has provided significant security assistance since the onset of the war against Russia in 2014 and the Trump administration strengthened our policy by approving the provision to Ukraine of anti-tank missiles known as javelins. 51:15 Marie Yovanovitch: As critical as the war against Russia is, Ukraine struggling democracy has an equally important challenge. Battling the Soviet legacy of corruption, which has pervaded Ukraine's government. Corruption makes Ukraine's leaders ever vulnerable to Russia and the Ukrainian people understand that. That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014 demanding to be a part of Europe, demanding the transformation of the system, demanding to live under the rule of law. Ukrainians, wanted the law to apply equally to all people, whether the individual in question is the president or any other citizen. It was a question of fairness, of dignity. Here again, there is a coincidence of interests. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy. While an honest and accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable and more valuable to the United States. A level playing field in this strategically located country bordering four NATO allies creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest, and profit. 3:38:10 Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Were you involved in the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call or preparations for the call? Marie Yovanovitch: No, I was not. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Were you involved in the deliberations about the pause in military sales to Ukraine as the Trump administration reviewed newly elected President Zelensky's commitment to corruption reforms? Marie Yovanovitch: For the delay in...? Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): For the pause. Marie Yovanovitch: The pause? No, I was not. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Were you involved in the proposed Trump-Zelensky, later Pence-Zelensky meetings in Warsaw, Poland on September 1st? Marie Yovanovitch: No, I was not. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Did you ever talk to President Trump in 2019? Marie Yovanovitch: No, I have not. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Mick Mulvaney. Marie Yovanovitch: No, I have not. Rep. Devin Nunes (CA): Thank you, Ambassador. 4:51:00 Rep. Mike Turner (OH): Now the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U., they would have under their portfolio aspiring nations to the E.U., would they not? Marie Yovanovitch: Yeah. Rep. Mike Turner (OH): Okay. So, E.U. Ambassador Sondland then would've had Ukraine in his portfolio because they're an aspiring nation and he's our U.S. ambassador to the EU. Correct? Marie Yovanovitch: I think he testified that one of his first discussions was with... Rep. Mike Turner (OH): But you agree that it's within his portfolio. Correct? You would agree that it's in his portfolio, would you not? Yes. Marie Yovanovitch: I would agree, that... Rep. Mike Turner (OH): Thank you. Now I want to go to the next... Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): I'm sorry, let her finish her answer, please. Rep. Mike Turner (OH): Now, Mr. Holbrook is a gentleman who I have an great deal of reverence for. Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): Ambassador Yovanovitch has not finished her answer. You may finish your answer Ambassador. Rep. Mike Turner (OH): Not out of my time. You're done. Nope. Right. Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): No, The ambassador will be recognized. Marie Yovanovitch: I would say that, all EU ambassadors deal with other countries, including aspiring countries, but it is unusual to name the U.S. ambassador to the EU to be responsible for all aspects of Ukraine. 4:54:15 Rep. Andre Carson (IN): What concerned you about the Prosecutor General's office when you were the ambassador in Ukraine? Marie Yovanovitch: What concerned us was that there didn't seem to be any progress in the three overall objectives, that Mr. Lutsenko had laid out, most importantly for the Ukrainian people, but also the international community. So the first thing was reforming the Prosecutor General's office. It's a tremendously powerful office where they had authority not only to conduct investigations, so an FBI like function, but also to do the actual prosecution. So very, very wide powers, which is part of that Soviet legacy. And there just wasn't a lot of progress in that. There wasn't a lot of progress in handling personnel issues and how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs because some of the people in those jobs were known to, were considered to be corrupt themselves. Secondly, the issue that was tremendously important to the Ukrainian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who died on the Maidan during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. Nobody has been held accountable for that. And that is, you know, kind of an open wound for the Ukrainian people. And thirdly, Ukraine needs all the money that it has. And it is, there is a strong belief that former president Yanukovych and those around him made off with over $40 billion. $40 billion! That's a lot in the U.S. It's a huge amount of money in Ukraine. And so, again, nobody has, none of that money has really been...I think, I think maybe $1 billion was repatriated, but the rest of it is still missing. 6:13:25 Rep. Peter Welch (VT): Now as ambassador, you had no knowledge of whatever it is President Trump ultimately seems to have wanted to get for cooperation in this investigation isn't that correct? Marie Yovanovitch: Yes. Rep. Peter Welch (VT): All right. Now you've been asked about whether a president has authority to replace an ambassador, and you have agreed that that's the president's prerogative. Marie Yovanovitch: Yes, that's true. Rep. Peter Welch (VT): But that assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal private political interests that the president at the expense of our national security, right? Marie Yovanovitch: Yes. Rep. Peter Welch (VT): And you've been the target of insults from the president. You join some very distinguished company, by the way, Senator McCain, General Kelly, a man, I admire. I think all of us do. General Mattis. We're not here to talk about that unless the reason you get insulted as you did today, essentially blaming you for Somalia, is if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses. He didn't intimidate you. You're here, you've endured. But there are other people out there that can expect to Trump treatment if they come forward. That's a question for us. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN Coverage, November 13, 2019 Watch on Youtube: Witnesses: William Taylor George Kent Transcript: 35:00 George Kent: The United States has very clear national interests at stake in Ukraine. Ukraine's success is very much in our national interest in the way we have defined our national interest broadly in Europe for the past 75 years. After World War II, U.S. Leadership furthered far-sighted policies like the Marshall plan in the creation of a rules based international order, protected by the collective security provided by NATO Western Europe, recovered and thrived after the carnage of World War II, not withstanding the shadow of the iron curtain. Europe's security and prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity. Support of Ukraine's success also fits squarely into our strategy for central and Eastern Europe since the fall of the wall 30 years ago this past week. A Europe truly whole, free and at peace, our strategic game for the entirety of my foreign service career is not possible without a Ukraine whole, free and at peace, including Crimea and the Donbass, territories currently occupied by Russia. 37:00 George Kent: Ukraine's popular revolution of dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro Russian leadership, the fleet of Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying 7% of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States. At that time, Ukraine state institutions were on the verge of collapse. Ukrainian civil society answered the challenge. They formed volunteer battalions of citizens, including technology professionals and medics, a crowdsourced funding for their own weapons, body armor and supplies. They were the 21st century Ukrainian equivalent of our own minute men of 1776 buying time for a regular army to reconstitute. Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. America's support and Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard. By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against the British Imperial might without the help of transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette's organized decision assistance to general George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul Jones' Navy, Congress has generously appropriated over one point $5 billion over the past five years, and desperately needed trained and equipped security assistance to Ukraine. These funds increase Ukraine strength and ability to fight Russian aggression. Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO. 39:20 George Kent: In 2019, Ukrainian citizens passed the political torch to a new generation. When that came of age, not in the final years of the Soviet union, but in an independent Ukraine, presidential and parliamentary elections swept out much of Ukraine's previous governing elite and seated 41 year old president Zelensky, a cabinet with an average age of 39, and a parliament with the average age of 41. At the heart of that change mandate five years after Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity is a thirst for justice because there cannot be dignity without justice, without a reform judicial sector that delivers justice with integrity for all, Ukrainian society will remain unsettled. Foreign investors, including American investors, will not bring the great investment needed to ensure that Ukraine's longterm prosperity is secured. 45:30 George Kent: In mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. Engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a White House meeting. 45:45 George Kent: There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine conditions include anticorruption reforms as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 54:45 William Taylor: Since 2014, you and Congress have provided over $1.6 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. The security assistance provides small unit training at an army base near Lviv in the Western end of the country. It provides ambulances, night vision devices, communications equipment, counter battery, radar, Navy ships, and finally weapons. The security systems demonstrates our commitment to resist aggression and defend freedom. 55:11 William Taylor: During the 2014 to 2016 period, I was serving outside of government and joined two other former ambassadors to Ukraine in urging the Obama Administration officials at the State Department, Defense Department and other agencies to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. I also supported much stronger sanctions on Russia. I was pleased when the Trump administration provided javelin anti-tank missiles and enacted stronger sanctions. 56:30 William Taylor: I could be effective only if the U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine, strong diplomatic support along with robust security, economic and technical assistance were to continue. 58:00 William Taylor: But once I arrived in Kiev, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances. Firstly, encouraging: President Zelensky was reforming Ukraine in a hurry. He appointed reformist ministers and supported long stalled anticorruption legislation. He took quick executive action, including opening Ukraine's high anticorruption court with a new parliamentary majority stemming from snap elections. President Zelensky changed the Ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies. The source of raw corruption for two decades. 1:05:30 William Taylor: On July 9th, on a phone call with Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, Fiona Hill, and Director of European Affairs, Lieutenant Colonel Alex Veneman at the NSC. They tried to reassure me that they were not aware of any official change in us policy towards Ukraine, OMB's announcement notwithstanding. They did confirm that the hold on security systems for Ukraine came from chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who maintained a skeptical view of Ukraine. 1:12:00 William Taylor: By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the long standing U.S. Policy of support for Ukraine was shifting. I called State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl to discuss this on August 21st. He said he was not aware of a change in policy, but would check on the status of the security assistance. My concerned deepened the next day. On August 22nd, during a phone conversation with Mr. Morrison, I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, 'It remains to be seen.' He also told me during this call that the president doesn't want to provide any assistance at all. *1:13:00 William Taylor: Just days later on August 27th, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kiev and met with President Zelensky during their meetings. Security systems was not discussed. As far as I knew, the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold until August 29th. 1:28:30 William Taylor: Mr. Chairman, there are two Ukraine stories today. The first is the one we're discussing this morning that you have been hearing about for the past two weeks. It's a rancorous story about whistleblowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption and interference in elections. In this story, Ukraine is merely an object. But there's another story, a positive bipartisan one and this second story, Ukraine is the subject. This one is about young people and a young nation struggling to break free of its past, hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new Ukraine, proud of its independence from Russia, eager to join Western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life. 1:32:00 William Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is counter battery radar. Another component are sniper weapons. 1:36:15 Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): Now, I, I think you said that if we believe in a principle of sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic, political and security alliances, we have to support Ukraine and its fight. That the kind of aggression we see by Russia can't stand. How is it important to American national security that we provide for a robust defense of Ukraine sovereignty? William Taylor: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent described, we have a national security policy, a national defense policy that identifies Russia and China as adversaries. The Russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in Europe for nearly 70 years. Until they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of nations, of inviolability of borders. That rule of law, that order that kept the peace in Europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in Europe was violated by the Russians. And if we don't push back on that, on those violations, then that will continue. And that Mr. chairman, affects us. It affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. This affects the kind of world that we want to see overall. So that affects our national interest very directly. Ukraine's on the front line of that conflict. 1:40:00 William Taylor: The whole notion of a rules based order was being threatened by the Russians in Ukraine. So our security assistance was designed to support Ukraine. That's it. It was not just the United States, it was all of our allies. 1:45:00 William Taylor: I had learned that in Warsaw, after the meeting Vice President Pence had with President Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland, had had meetings there and had described, to Mr. Yermak, the assistant to President Zelensky, that the security assistance was also held, pending announcement, by President Zelensky in public of these investigations. Before that, I had only understood, from Ambassador Sondland that the White House meeting was conditioned. And at this time, after I heard of this conversation, it struck me, it was clear to me that security assistance was also being held. 1:46:10 William Taylor: It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. It's another thing I thought, to leverage security assistance, security assistance to a country at war dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. It was much more alarming. The White House meeting was one thing. Security assistance was much more alarming. 1:58:40 William Taylor: Mr. Goldman, what I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people, and in this case it was what I heard from ambassador Sondland. 2:07:30 Daniel Goldman: Just so we're clear, Ambassador Taylor, before this July 25th call, President Trump had frozen the security assistance that Ukraine needed and that the White House meeting was conditioned on Ukraine initiating this investigation, and that had been relayed to the Ukrainians. Is that an accurate state of play at this time? William Taylor: That's an accurate state of play. I at that point had no indication that any discussion of the security assistance being, subject to - conditioned on investigations had taken place. Daniel Goldman: Right. But you understood that the white house meeting. William Taylor: That's correct. 3:14:15 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): We know that from your deposition in those 55 days that aid is delayed, you met with President Zelensky three times. The first one was July 26th the day after the famous call now between President Trump and President Zelensky. President Zelensky meets with you, Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Sondland and again according to your deposition and your testimony, there was no linkage of security assistance dollars to investigating Burisma or the Bidens. Second meeting is August 27th, again in this 55 day timeframe. Second meeting is August 27. President Zelensky meets with you and Ambassador Bolton and others and again there no linkage of dollars - security assistance dollars to an investigation of the Bidens. Then of course the third meeting is September 5th. President Zelensky meets with you and Senators Johnson and Murphy. And once again there was no linkage of security assistance dollars to an investigation of Burisma or the Bidens. Three meetings with the president of Ukraine, the new president, and no linkage. That's accurate? William Taylor: Mr. Jordan is certainly accurate on the first two, first two meetings, because to my knowledge, the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of August. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): The Politico article. William Taylor: The Politico article. The third meeting that you mentioned with the senators, Senator Murphy and Senator Johnson, there was discussion of the security assistance, but Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): The linkage... William Taylor: The linkage, there was not, there was not discussion of linkage. 3:19:50 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): Ambassador, you weren't on the call were you, with the president? You didn't listen in on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call? William Taylor: I did not. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): You've never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney? William Taylor: I never did. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): You never met the president. William Taylor: That's correct. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): You had three meetings again with Zelensky and it didn't come up, and two of those they had never heard about, as far as I know. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): And President Zelensky never made an announcement? This, this is what I can't believe. And you're their star witness. 3:23:20 George Kent: If we're doing a systemic, holistic program, you need institutions with integrity. That starts with investigators. It goes to prosecutors, it goes to courts, and eventually it goes to the correction system. In countries like Ukraine, we generally start with law enforcement, and that's what we did in 2014-15 with the new patrol police. There also is oftentimes needed a specialized anticorruption agency. In Ukraine that was called the National Anticorruption Bureau or NABU. There was a different body that reviewed asset declarations for unusual wealth called National Anticorruption Prevention Council. And eventually we got to helping them establish a special anticorruption prosecutor and eventually a high court on anticorruption. And that was to try to create investigators, prosecutors, and courts with integrity that couldn't be bought and would be focused on high level corruption. 3:34:00 Rep. Adam Schiff (CA): You've been asked, how could there be conditioning if the Ukrainians didn't know, but the Ukrainians were told by Ambassador Sondland, were they not? William Taylor: They were. They were. They didn't know as near as I can tell, the Ukrainians did not know about the hold on the phone call, on July 25th that's true. But they were told, as you said, Mr. Chairman, on the 1st of September. 3:38:50 Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Example of that Ambassador Taylor, is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the President of the United States. Is that correct? William Taylor: That's correct, sir. Rep. Michael Turner (OH): Mr. Kent, have you had any contact with the President of the United States? George Kent: I have not. Press Conference: , npr, October 17, 2019 Speaker: Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney Transcript: 18:50 John Carl: All right, so to the question of Ukraine. Mick Mulvaney: Yeah. John Carl: Can you clarify, and I've been trying to get an answer to this. Was the president serious when he said that he would also like to see China investigate the Bidens and you were directly involved in the decision to withhold funding from Ukraine. Can you explain to us now definitively why? Why was funding with that... Mick Mulvaney: I'll deal with the second one first, which is, look, it should come as no surprise to anybody. The last time I was up here, I haven't done this since I was chief of staff, right? Last time I was up here. Some of you folks remember it was for the budget briefings. Right. And one of the questions y'all always asked me about the budget is what are y'all doing to the foreign aid budget? Cause we absolutely gutted it. President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. Never has been. Still isn't, doesn't like spending money overseas, especially when it's poorly spent. And that is exactly what drove this decision. I've been in the office a couple times with him talking about this. He said, look, Mick, this is a corrupt place. Everybody knows it's a corrupt place. By the way, put this in context. This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico, when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch of aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And by the way, it turns out we were right. All right, so put that as your context. It's like this is a corrupt place. I don't want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it and have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets. Plus I'm not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either. So we actually looked at that during that time, before when we cut the money off before the money actually flowed, cause the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year. We actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing. In terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that, and I can't remember, if it's zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. You've heard the president say this, that we give them tanks and the other countries give them pillows. That's absolutely right that as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine. They are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid and they weren't helping Ukraine and that still to this day are not, and the president did not like that as a normal as long answer your question, but I'm still going. So, those were the driving factors. He also mentioned to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server. Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money. Now there was a report... John Carl: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he, it was on the, to withhold funding to Ukraine. Mick Mulvaney: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was, was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation then that is absolutely appropriate and which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn't, if we didn't pay out the money, it would be illegal. Okay. It would be unlawful. That is one of those things that is, has that little shred of truth in it. That that makes it look a lot worse than it really is. We were concerned about in our, over at OMB about an impoundment, and I know I just put half you folks to bed, but there's the budget control act, impound budget control, empowerment act of 1974 says, if Congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. Okay. At least that's how it's interpreted by some folks. And we knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it. John Carl: And that was the legality of the issue you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the incident Democrats server happened as well. Mick Mulvaney: We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it? The Northern triangle countries were holding up aid at the Northern triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration. But by the way, and this speaks to it, this speaks to important point because I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the gentleman who testified was...McKinney, is that his name? I don't know him. He testified yesterday. And if you go and if you believe the news reports, okay. Cause we've not seen any transcripts of this. The only transcript I've seen was Sondland's testimony morning this morning. If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say? Yesterday when McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this, and I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence and foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences and foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. And what you're seeing now, I believe, is a group of mostly career politicians, career bureaucrats who are saying, you know what? I don't like president Trump's politics, so I'm going to participate in this witchhunt that they're undertaking on the Hill. Elections do have consequences and they should, and your foreign policy is going to change. Obama did it in one way. We're doing it a different way and there's no problem with that. 23:50 Reporter: That it was okay for the US government to hold up aid and require a foreign government to investigate political opponents of the president. Mick Mulvaney: Now, you're talking about looking forward to the next election...We're talking... Reporter: The DNC is still involved in this next election. Is that not correct? Mick Mulvaney: So wait a second. So this, hold on a sec. Not yet. Let me ask you guys to gate the DNC. Let's look at this is the DNC. There's an ongoing investigation by our department of justice into the 2016 election. I can't remember the person's name. Durham, okay. That's an ongoing investigation. Right? So you're saying the president States, the chief law enforcement person cannot ask somebody to cooperate with an ongoing public investigation into wrongdoing? That's just bizarre to me that you would think that you can't do that. Reporter: And so you would say that it's fine to ask about the DNC, but not about Biden? So Biden is now, Biden is running for the democratic nomination, right? That's for 2020. Mick Mulvaney: That's a hypothetical. Cause that did not happen here. But I would ask, you know, on the call, the president did ask about investigating the Bidens. Are you saying that the money that was held up, that that had nothing to do with the Bidens. Mick Mulvaney: The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. There's no way. And that was the point I made to you. Reporter: And you're drawing a distinction. You're saying that it... Mick Mulvaney: Three factors, again, I was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for that. The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in the support of the Ukraine and whether or not they were a cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our department of justice. That's completely legitimate. Press Conference: , Council on Foreign Relations, January 23, 2018 Speakers: Richard Haass - President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden Transcript: Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Published Transcript: , BBC News, February 7, 2014 Speakers: Victoria Nuland, Asst. Sec. of State for Europe US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt Listen on Youtube: Transcript: Victoria Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay. Victoria Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. Daily Briefing: , State Department, C-SPAN Coverage, Jen Psaki, February 6, 2014 Speaker: Jennifer R. Psaki Transcript: 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD205: Nuclear Waste Storage

25 november 2019 | 77 min

For 38 years, the United States government has been trying to figure out what to do with the radioactive nuclear waste that was created when the Defense Department developed nuclear weapons and the nuclear waste that continues to be created by nuclear power generation. In this episode, learn the history of this on-going dilemma and listen in on the debate as it currently rages in the 116th Congress. Executive Producer: Craig Porter and Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Articles/Documents Article: by John Sadler, Las Vegas Sun, November 23, 2019 Article: by Julian Ryall, The Telegraph, November 19, 2019 Article: by Cassie Wilson, News 4 On Your Side, November 14, 2019 Article: by Julian Ryall, The Telegraph, October 16, 2019 Article: by Julian Ryall, The Telegraph, September 10, 2019 Article: by Humberto Sanchez, The Nevada Independent, August 5, 2019 Article: by Sammy Feldblum, National Geographic, July 30, 2019 Article: by Rob Nikolewski, Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2019 Article: by Brian Greenspun, Las Vegas Sun, July 14, 2019 Article: by Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2019 Article: by Ed Komenda, Reno Gazette Journal, May 24, 2019 Audit Report: by Teri L. Donaldson, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy, May, 2019 Document: Authenticated U.S. Government Information, GPO, January 14, 2019 Article: by Emma Foehringer Merchant, gtm, August 24, 2018 Article: by Jeremy Berke, Business Insider, May 8, 2018 Article: by Vineet Kulkarni, Market Realist, July 14, 2017 Document: by Fred C. Dilger, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, February 19, 2015 Article: by Brian Zajac, NBC News, February 23, 2012 Document: by Mark Holt, Richard J. Campbell, and Mary Beth Nikitin, Congressional Research Service, January 18, 2012 Article: by Tom Zeller Jr., The New York Times, March 15, 2011 Article: by Jia Lynn Yang, The Washington Post, March 14, 2011 Press Release: by Charles Hufnagel and Patrick Germain, March 1, 2006 Additional Resources S.903 — 116th Congress (2019-2020): , Congress.Gov, September 24, 2019 S.1234 — 116th Congress (2019-2020): , Congress.Gov, April 30, 2019 S.512 — 115th Congress (2017-2018): , Congress.Gov, January 14, 2019 About & Timeline: TerraPower, A nuclear innovation company Glossary: , Independent Statistics & Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration Index: NS Energy Leadership Spotlight: Nuclear Energy Institute Linkedin Profile: , Linkedin Linkedin Profile: , Linkedin Nuclear Explained: , Independent Statistics & Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration , Nuclear Energy Institute Online Encyclopedia: by John P. Rafferty, Encyclopaedia Britannica Project Summary: NS Energy Project Overview: Bechtel Report: Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Future, January 2012 State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office Stock: , MarketWatch U.S. Code >> Development and Control of Atomic Energy Legal Information Institute Witness Disclosure Requirement: , Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives Image: , The New York Times Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 27, 2019. Witnesses: Maria Korsnick - President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Steven Nesbit - Nuclear Waste Policy Task Force Chair at the American Nuclear Society Geoffrey Fettus - Senir Attorney at the National Resources Defense Council John Wagner - Associate Director at the Idaho National Labratory’s Nuclear Science & Technology Directorate Transcript: 0:50 Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK): Beginning with the passage of the Nuclear Waste policy Act in 1982, congress has attempted several times to address the back end of the fuel cycle. In an effort to resolve an earlier stalemate, the federal government was supposed to begin taking title to use fuel and moving it to our pository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, beginning in 1998. Manchin waste must be buried.aiff 5:30 Sen. Joe Manchin (WV):Since the National Academy of Sciences 1957 report recommending deep geologic disposal for highly radioactive waste, it is clear what we need to do with the nuclear waste. The prudent and responsible thing to do is to bury this waste deep in the earth, to protect the environment and public for generations to come. Unfortunately, the path to achieve this is not entirely clear. 7:45 Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Failing to act means the federal government is racking up more liability to be paid to the utilities to store this waste in their own private storage facilities adjacent to the reactors. So the taxpayer is on the hook here to the tune of about $2 million a day with an estimated overall liability of $34.1 billion. 11:15 Maria Korsnick: Currently 97 commercial nuclear power plants in 29 states provide nearly 20% of the America's electricity and more than half of the emissions free electricity. 12:00 Maria Korsnick: The US nuclear industry has upheld its end of the bargain at sites in 35 states around the country. Commercial used fuel is safely stored and managed awaiting pickup by the federal government, which was scheduled for 1998. 13:00 Maria Korsnick:But let me be clear. Congressional action is necessary and three important points must be addressed. First, we need to answer on the Yucca Mountain license application. DOE submitted the application to the NRC more than a decade ago, and Congress directed the NRC to issue a decision in 2012. This deadline, like too many was missed because DOE without basis, shut down the Yucca mountain project for the sake of the communities holding stranded used fuel wishing to redevelop their sites. We must move forward and allow Nevada's concerns with Yucca mountain to be heard by NRC'S, independent administrative judges. This will allow a licensing decision to be determined based on its scientific merits rather than politics. 13:50 Maria Korsnick: Second, as a licensing process of Yucca mountain moves forward, interim storage can play an important role in helping move spent fuel away from reactor sites. Moving interim storage in parallel with the Yucca Mountain project helps to alleviate state and local concerns that interim storage will become a defacto disposal facility. 14:30 Maria Korsnick: And finally, the nuclear industry and electricity consumers around the country have paid their fair share to address the back end of the fuel cycle. But as 1234 was originally drafted prior to the court mandated prohibition on the fee, and I want to strongly convey the importance of not prematurely reimposing the nuclear waste fee, especially given the substantial balance and large investment interest, which accrues annually. 24:30 Steven NesbitIn addition, the money from the nuclear waste fund, the federal government has many means for providing infrastructure improvements, federal land, educational opportunities, and other means of support to states and communities interested in exploring a partnership on the management of nuclear material. Make those potential benefits abundantly clear from the beginning. 27:45 Geoffrey Fettus: The years of wrangling over what standards should be set for cleanup and are massively contaminated nuclear weapon's sites, such as those in Washington or South Carolina is made exponentially worse by DOE self regulatory status, which the Atomic Energy Act ordains with these exemptions. The same is true with commercial spent fuel, where any state that is targeted to receive nuclear waste looks to be on the hook for the entire burden of the nation's spent fuel. State consent and public acceptance of potential repository sites will never be willingly granted, unless and until power on how, when and where waste is disposed of is shared, rather than decided simply by Federal Fiat. There's only one way consent can happen consistent with our cooperative federalism. Specifically, Congress can finally remove the Atomic Energy Acts. Anachronistic exemptions from our bedrock environmental laws are hazardous waste and clean water laws must include full authority over radioactivity and nuclear waste facilities, so that EPA and most importantly, the states can assert direct regulatory authority. Removing these exemptions will not magically solve this puzzle and create a final repository. But I think it can work faster than what we have now, because it will open a path forward that respects each state rather than offering up the latest one for sacrifice. The Texas and New Mexico events of the last several weeks demonstrate this. 33:15 John Wagner: First and foremost, I want to be clear from a technical standpoint. Spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation is safe as evidenced by more than 50 years of safe and secure operations by the public and private sectors. We do not have a spent nuclear fuel safety crisis in this country. 46:35 Geoffrey Fettus:The actual waste issue, honestly Senator, has not, and is not what is holding up nuclear powers ability to compete in the market. What is holding up nuclear powers ability to compete in the market are it's gigantic upfront capital costs. The South Carolina reactors that are now a $9 billion hole in the ground at summer and Vogel now, I think is now pushing 28 billion for two new units. The likelihood of building new nuclear power is vanishingly unlikely in this [inaudible]. 47:40 Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): We're decommissioning some nuclear plants? Maria Korsnick: That's correct. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Are they-, have they run their life cycle? Maria Korsnick: Not all of them. No. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Could they be-... Maria Korsnick: They're being shutdown, because in the marketplace right now, the marketplace does not recognize the carbon free attribute of nuclear. It's competing.... Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): So there's no value to carbon free nuclear? Maria Korsnick: Not in the marketplace there's not. There should be. And that would help. And-... Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Are any of these plants in basically controlled PSE's, or basically they're all merchant? Maria Korsnick: The ones that are shutting down for the most part are merchant, not all, but for the most part. 50:40 Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Yeah, we have four places that we could-, four tracks we could follow to do something. We could have a Yucca mountain open, we could build a new Yucca Mountain, we could have a public interim site, or we could approve a private interim site. 54:05 Geoffrey Fettus: Texas and New Mexico would both be barred from the consent process. Clearly by the terms of the bill. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): And I assume from your testimony, you think they should be? Geoffrey Fettus: We think that would put us in precisely the same stalemate. It's put us here for-... 54:20 Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN):Your testimony, you thought the private sites are because of the promise they have ought to have priority, is that correct? Maria Korsnick: We do think they should have priority. The challenge with the private sites right now, is they don't want to be the defacto longterm storage, which keeps it connected to a long term storage answer. 59:00 Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): What should consent look like? Geoffrey Fettus: Consent should look like regulatory authority, as simple as that. To the extent that there has been acceptance in New Mexico of the WHIP-... Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): right... Geoffrey Fettus: ...Transuranic Geologic Repository, the only operating one in the world. Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): Why do we have that? Why do we have consent for-... Geoffrey Fettus: The only consent-, Well, it's a little complicated and it's not nearly the consent that needs to be there and it's not the full regulatory authority-... Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): But the state has.... Geoffrey Fettus: But the state has hazardous waste permitting authority, and that state can shut the place down and set terms by which it can operate after it had a fire and an explosion that shut it down and contaminated it for several years. Sen. Martin Heinrich (NM): And we reopened that facility, which I will repeat, is the only, only deep geological repository, um, that's been successfully built that I'm aware of in this country, because of the state's involvement. 1:02:35 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Dr. Wagner mentioned several small reactors. How much more efficiently would these smaller reactors use fuel than reactors in past decades, and could you describe how these new forms of generating nuclear energy could possibly change our need for nuclear waste storage going forward? Maria Korsnick: Yeah, so, I guess as you look forward, there's a variety of different types of small modular reactors that can be built, but some of the types of small modular reactors that can be built would actually be interested in using a different type of fuel. And some of that fuel could be in fact what we consider used fuel today. So in any solution set that we put in, we should remind ourselves that we want it to be retrievable. There's 95% still good energy in what we call used fuel. It's just in a different form. And some of these reactors that are being looked at for tomorrow, will be able to harvest that energy. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): And will be able to use it far below that 95% threshold that you described? Maria Korsnick: That's correct. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): How low would they go? Maria Korsnick: They should be able to use the majority of that good energy. I would say, you know, you'll be down to maybe the four to 5%, that's left, that would then need to be stored. 1:04:40 Maria Korsnick: Sort of goes back to when we said there's 95% still good energy in the, what we call, used fuel. It's transformed, and so instead of being, say, uranium 235, it's turned into uranium 238, or it's turned into plutonium 239. So those isotopes can still release energy, but they, not in the current way in our current lightwater reactors. So in recycling, what you do is you essentially take the fuel apart and you isolate what's good and can be used again. So that uranium, that plutonium,- it can then be mixed and you can use it in current reactors, that's called "Mox" fuel, or you can use it for other types of reactors. So, again, it sort of closes the fuel cycle, if you will. You're left with a very small amount that is not useful in a fuel. And France as an example, reprocesses their fuel, they turn that into a glass and then you store that inert glass. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): So the glass is inert? It's not [inaudible] at that moment. It's not emitting?... Maria Korsnick: It's radioactive, but it's not useful for fuel. So it's stored in accordance with,-. It would it be in a deep geologic situation, but it will be a very small amount. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): No, it reduces the overall volume of what's produced. Maria Korsnick: That's correct. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): So why wouldn't we do that? Maria Korsnick: So in the United States, we've chosen not to. We've chosen the fact that, and this was made in the Carter Administration, days that the fact of reprocessing, they look at it as a potential proliferation, even though there are many processes and things you could put in place to ensure that it's done, without any kind of proliferation concerns. But that's why the United States doesn't currently go for reprocessing today. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): So if that decision was made in the Carter administration, when we're talking about 40 years ago or more... Maria Korsnick: That's correct. Sen. Mike Lee (UT): What has changed since then that might cause us to need to reconsider that? Has the technology changed in such a way that, you know, what was perceived as dangerous would no longer necessarily be deemed, made dangerous? Maria Korsnick: Well, I mean, I think we've proven on a lot of fronts that we are, we have the capability of managing a significant things. The government manages plutonium on a regular basis, so it obviously can be done and can be done safely. 1:07:45 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): In 1987, I believe it was, Tennessee was able to successfully remove the Oak Ridge facility as an interim storage facility changed the law. And now in this bill, Tennessee has equally, the opportunity to say no, like every other state, except Nevada. That's all I'm looking for in my state, is those similar opportunities. 1:08:25 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): Section 306E requires a potential host state to veto or approve a site before they are fully informed of a site's local impacts, prior to initiating a review licensing process. That essentially leaves Yucca mountain as the default sole repository. Section 506A gives parody to all other states, yet allows Yucca Mountain and other states in New Mexico, Texas, and Utah to be kept on the list without requiring their consent. And section 509 eliminates the legal 70,000 metric ton limit of waste to be stored at a repository, so if no state wants to be a host, this guarantees all the waste goes to Yucca Mountain. 1:11:00 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): Under this act, would the NEI support this act if the NWA walked away, and walked away from the Yucca Mountain project and demonstrated that a new repository project could be done more efficiently and rapidly than Yucca Mountain, would you support that? Maria Korsnick: I don't see how another process could be done more rapidly with all of the analysis that's already been done on Yucca. But if you found such magic place, yes, we could be supplying.... Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): Well, I, DOE studies have shown that walking away from Yucca Mountain and starting over with a repository in salt or shell could save billions of dollars over the life of the facility. So, and this is the challenge I've had, we've had a stalemate over the last 32 years and we have offered the opportunity to come in and work with us and find a solution for it, and I think you have that today. But unfortunately, what I see from the industry is this same old playbook and not willing to even admit there's an opportunity to move forward. There's not even a willingness to talk about potential new technology that can be utilized to address this safe storage, and that is my concern. 1:23:55 Sen. Angus King (ME): But if the main Yankee site is safe, why not a larger similar site that has the same technology? You're telling me everybody says it's safe. As an interim step until we've figure out what, what the best pr-, I don't understand why we have to go from 80 temporary to permanent? Um, isn't there a step in between that with technological.... Maria Korsnick: Well, that's what consolidated interim storage is. Sen. Angus King (ME): That's what I'm talking.... Maria Korsnick: Yeah, and the challenge is nobody wants to sign up for consolidated interim storage. You mentioned New Mexico. The governor just recently wrote a letter. The last New Mexico governor was in support of interim storage. The current New Mexico governor not, and the challenge is because they don't want to become the long-term repository, and until there is an idea of a long-term repository, anybody that raises their hands for that consolidated interim storage is defacto the long,-term... Sen. Angus King (ME): I think that's a good point because are these temporary sites are now the defacto long-term sites. 1:27:55 Maria Korsnick: If you decided today on a long term repository site, by the time you license it, let's just select Yucca since we've talked about it, that would still be another three to five years just to license it today, cause all of the analysis has been done and there's additional hearings that have to happen. Nevada has to have their say..... Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): Well, if we're not capacity, why would we have an interim site? If you just want to carry three to five years.... Maria Korsnick: That's just to get your license. It's going to be another decade to build it. Alright, so you're already talking, you have 15 years if you were on "go" today. 35 billion is what your obligation is today and in 15 years it's going to be closer to 50 billion. So you have to manage the liability that you are building on a daily basis and the best way to help manage that liability is that interim storage, because once you start taking that fuel off site, eventually that judgment fund comes down because you don't have to pay the judgment fee because you've taken the fuel in an interim state. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): How far along are we on permitting the interim sites? Maria Korsnick: You're nowhere. Sen. Joe Manchin (WV): So, whether we started today with interim or permanent, it's the same timetable? Sen. John Barrasso (WY): There's two sites that have applications in, but you know, whether they will actually go forward and construct those sites, is an open question. 1:34:40 Sen. John Barrasso (WY): American rate payers have now paid about 12, I'm sorry, $15 billion, to site, to study and to design a repository for the Yucca Mountain site and thus funding $200 million that was paid to the state of Nevada to develop their own scientific and technical analysis. So, Ms. Korsnick, why is it important for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete the independent safety review of the proposed Yucca mountain repository? Maria Korsnick: Well, you just mentioned the significant money that has been expended. We should have a fair hearing and quite frankly, give Nevada a chance to have their hearing. The process will require that it goes through the judges, et cetera, through the licensing process and for all this money that has been expended. Let's understand the science and the licensing process and work ourselves through it. In the future, we might need another long-term repository. So let's learn everything that we can and understand the science and the licensing process for the one that's so far along. 1:45:10 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): I think we should learn from the science from Yucca Mountain because there are no natural barriers or manmade barriers that make it safe. But we keep hearing that all the time. So let me ask you this, if we were to learn from the science of Yucca Mountain, which would require still 40 more miles to, of tunnel to be, to dig the tunnel, to bury the canisters, which, by the way, the same canisters that are utilized for Yucca Mountain in the study can't be utilized because the industry doesn't use the same type of canisters. But what I'm told, it is so hot once it's stored, and it leaks like a sieve because the hydrology shows already in the exploratory tunnel that it leaks like a sieve, that once the canisters are there, titanium drip shields will have to be created to put over the canisters. And by the way, those titanium drip shields would not be placed in that facility once the canisters here till 90 years later, and it cannot be placed by man in there, so you have to build the robotics to put the pipe Titanium drip shields to protect the water that goes down into the canisters that would go into the aquifer below. Is that the science that you're saying that you would learn from that you should not have in any other repository? Steven Nesbit: What I was referring to senator, was completing the licensing process and having the concerns such as you just expressed evaluated by a panel of experts and ruled on in a manner that we can learn from them, if indeed we go on to develop other repositories elsewhere. That's all I talked about... Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): We already have the information, and that's my point..... Steven Nesbit: Well Senator, I don't agree with your terms.... Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): You spent $19 billion on a five mile exploratory tunnel to study the geology and hydrology. We know that because it's a volcanic tuff and there's fractures through the rock, that it's going to leak, so that's why the titanium drip shields are part of your plan for the canisters that will be placed there. So that's why I'm saying we've already had the information that shows it's not safe, so why are we going to waste another 30 years with 218 contentions by the state and lawsuits that I know I was part of, this attorney general against your department or, excuse me, against the Department of Energy, and instead of looking forward in a comprehensive approach and utilizing the science to help us understand, and moving forward, and the new technology that is out there, that's all I'm looking for, and I'd love the industry to come to the table and work with us on that, so thank you. Steven Nesbit: The key question at Yucca Mountain is not whether it's built in volcanic tuff, but whether it can or cannot comply with the very conservative environmental standards that were laid down to protect the health and safety of the public, and that's the question that would be resolved in a licensing hearing before fair, impartial and qualified judges. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): I disagree, but now that I have more time, let me add a little bit more to this. Because I think, for purposes of science, we really are. And I would ask the scientists here, isn't the intent here to decrease any type of unexpected opportunities with respect to science? So you want an, you want a place that is safe, that you are going to decrease any vulnerabilities with respect to that deep geologic site, instead of adding to those vulnerabilities by manmade, alleged safety barriers or natural safety periods, you're going to decrease those kinds of vulnerabilities. And isn't that what you're really looking for, for any type of site, a deep, geologic site and, maybe Mr. Fettus, I don't know if you have a response to that? Geoffrey Fettus: I couldn't agree more Senator Cortez Masto. The idea behind any geological repositories to find geologic media that can isolate the waste for that length of time, it's dangerous. And the problem that the Yucca Mountain project has repeatedly run into is, whenever it ran into the technical challenges that you so accurately described, the response was to weaken the standards, to allow the site to be licensed. So we don't look at the upcoming atomic safety and licensing board proceeding, if it were to ever go forward as as a full exercise and having the state have a fair say. , Committee on Environment and Public Works: Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, June 4, 2019 Witnesses: Chris Levesque - CEO at TerraPower William Magwood - Director General at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Transcript: 26:35 William Magwood: About 30 companies around the world are vying to develop game changing technologies, most of them working in gen four concepts. While ithere is great hope and enthusiasm at each of these companies, it's important to note that developing a new light water technology and shepherding it through regulatory approval costs at least a billion and a half. Generation four technologies will cost substantially more, and this is before billions are spent on demonstration facilities. The typical company working to develop an innovative nuclear technology today has perhaps a dozen engineers and scientists devoted to the technology efforts and access to tens of millions of dollars. In comparison, I recently visited the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, which is developing a molten salt reactor technology. Molton salt reactors are a gen four technology that is high interest to several private sector companies because it represents the path of extraordinarily safe and efficient nuclear reactors. They have the potential as consume waste rather than generate it. The project in China has currently over 400 scientist and engineers hard at work developing this technology with plans to build a demonstration reactor the next decade. 31:20 Chris Levesque: Demonstrating new nuclear technologies is the most important step to jumpstart an advanced U.S.nNuclear industry and compete globally. No company can commercialize advanced nuclear technology until it is demonstrated. Federal supportive demonstration efforts has driven down costs for technologies like solar, wind, and hydraulic fracturing. We need a similarly ambitious effort to demonstrate a portfolio of advanced nuclear reactors. This will take increased public private cooperation, and we need to start this now. 54:00 Chris Levesque: One thing the government and specifically this committee has done very right, I think, is the passage of NIMA because that really empowers our safety regulator to entertain these advanced reactor designs. So thank you for that support. And one area where improvement is needed, I think, and the committee has already focusing on this is with NELA, the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act. We really need a demonstration project. We need multiple demonstration projects in the U.S. where we actually design, build, and demonstrate advanced technologies. Otherwise this will all be talk and we won't realize this, this new technology in the United States. 59:00 Sen. Mike Braun (IN): So you mentioned computer modeling as a difference. Give me some other differences so I can easily understand what generation one and two is then what this miracle might be if we ever see it. Chris Levesque: Yeah. So this is leading to some of the benefits of advanced reactors. And this applies to many of the technologies. These are now low pressure systems. They're systems that have inherent safety, meaning we don't need a lot of extra mechanical and electrical systems.Sen. Mike Braun (IN): Can they store fuel onsite when it's spent? Chris Levesque: Well, they do require onsite fuel storage and some of them require a future geological repository which the U.S. government is working on. But many of these technologies like Terra Power's also because of the computer modeling, they have very advanced physics to the core that generate much lower waste at the end of the fuel cycle, up to an 80% reduction in that waste. And so that's why China and Russia, even though they're building plants that are much like what we developed in the U.S, they have their eyes on these advanced reactor designs and really the U.S, because of our national lab complex and our legacy from those plants I mentioned... Sen. Mike Braun (IN): But they're not built yet? They're still in the developmental stage? Chris Levesque: We are really the best poised... The U S has a leadership opportunity here that if we don't take it, China and Russia will. But we are best situated today to take leadership on advanced reactors. And if we don't, China and Russia will in a very short period of time. The time to act is now, as in this year, we need to begin work on demonstration of advanced reactors. 1:05:30 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And Mr. Levesque, one of my earliest exposures to Terra Power involved the proposition that the technology had the promise of allowing us to go back through the currently just sitting there, nuclear waste stockpiles that we have for which we have no plan and actually be able to utilize that and repurpose it as fuel and turn, as I said in my opening remarks, a liability into an asset. Is that still a focus of Terra Power? Will it remain a focus of Terra Power? Is that a focus of the industry? And what can we do to help make sure it remains the focus of the next gen or gen four industry? Chris Levesque: Senator, you're pointing to a very, a major capability of, of advanced reactors. Today's reactors only use about 5% of the fissile material before the reactor has to be shut down and the fuel is removed. It's just the way the physics work. Advanced reactors, including Terra Power's design, much more completely uses that fuel. Now, Terra Power's designs today plan on using depleted uranium, which is the waste product of the enrichment process. We can use either depleted uranium or natural uranium to fuel the traveling wave reactor. hHowever, this entire new family of advanced reactors does offer the potential to go and look at spent fuel. Of course, we, you know, we're waiting for the U S to develop a geologic repository for spent fuel. But advanced nuclear technologies do allow you the opportunity to go look at what amount of fissile material is remaining in that spent fuel and is there a way to utilize more of it? So that's yet another benefit of advanced reactors. 1:07:30 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): If I may make a comment, Mr. Chairman, I know that you made from a very strong business background and if we were running United States incorporated, the liability of all that nuclear waste we have stockpiled all around the country and dozens of sites would show up when your auditors came and when you did your financial reporting to your shareholders, they would say here on the debit side of the column is this liability that you have for having to deal with this nuclear waste at some point, and if it was a $500 million liability, you'd have an incentive to spend up to $499 million to clean it up. But because we're the United States of America, not the United States incorporated, there is no place where it shows up in our balance sheet and so we really don't have that persistent economic incentive that a corporation would have to deal with it as a national issue. There's a bit of a carbon price flavor to the point I'm trying to make, but there's also, this is like the reverse of it. There's this liability and there's no way in which, as I can see it, that a Terra Power or somebody else can say, okay, there's a $500 million problem, that means I can come up with a $200 million solution and then we can split the difference and we're making like $150 million and my business sense gets motivated. My innovation juices start to flow to solve that problem. Instead of just sits there and the stuff has sat there for decades and we're waiting for the magic solution to go put it in Yucca mountain or someplace. But I don't see that happening without a revolt from Nevada. So we need to, I think there's an economic solution here as well. If this was a pure business proposition, there'd be a lot more energy in solving it because there'd be this account that was dragging on our balance sheet saying, fix me, fix me, fix me. , House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, June 1, 2011. Witnesses: Peter Lyons - then Assistant Energy Secretary for Nuclear Energy Gregory Friedman - then Energy Department Inspector General Martin Malsch - Attorney representing the State of Nevada. Christopher Kouts - Former Acting Director of Civilian Radioactive Waster Management at the US Department of Energy Transcript: 20:00 Rep. Shelley Berkley (NV): Thank you for inviting me to testify today. Let's get right to the point. Nevadans had been saying no to Yucca Mountain for decades and we will continue shouting "No" at the top of our lungs until this effort to shove nuclear waste down our throats is ended. I don't know who you met with, but I can tell you the latest poll polls show that 77% of the people of the state of Nevada don't want nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain. Why? Because we don't want our home turned into a nuclear garbage dump and we oppose more wasteful spending on a $100 billion dinosaur in the Nevada desert that should have gone extinct years ago. I know members of this committee will hear today from others who will say that Nevada's efforts to stop the dump is all political and it's nothing to do with science. Hogwash! The truth is that Nevada's opposition has always been based on the danger that Yucca mountain poses to our state and our nation. Make no mistake, the Yucca Mountain project was born of politics starting with the infamous 1987 Screw Nevada bill. And why was it politics? Because the state of Nevada had a very small delegation at that time and we were unable to protect the state from the 49 others. You want to talk about science? There's no radiation standards that currently exist because there's no way to create radiation standards to protect the public from nuclear waste with a 300,000 year half shelf-life. Originally, they were going to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, then they realized there were groundwater problems, so we were going to store it in containers with a titanium shield to protect it from the dripping water. Then they realized that wasn't enough, cause the titanium shields were going to erode. So then they were going to build concrete bunkers to contain the titanium shields that contain the canisters. And then, the last secretary of energy in the Bush administration actually said he was going to create an army of robots that were going to go down to Yucca mountain because man can't go down there, and to be able to protect us from the, the nuclear waste leakage. This legislation, the Screw Nevada bill, did away with any pretense of science when it eliminated every other site under consideration as a dump location. At the same time, the nuclear industry and its allies have worked for years to silence Nevada's criticism and to minimize the fact that the proposed dump is located smack in the middle of an active earthquake zone. This is an area that has been rocked by violent earthquakes in the recent past and we know the risks it creates. Proponents of the dump have also sought to dismiss scientific finding, showing that water will enter Yucca mountain causing rapid corrosion of waste canisters and resulting in release of dangerous radioactive materials. And dump backers have worked tirelessly to downplay the risk to millions of Americans living along the transportation routes from decades of waste shipments barreling down our nation's roads and railways, with each canister a potential terrorist target or accident waiting to happen, whether caused by human error, mechanical failure, or a deliberate 911 style strike, a massive release of these deadly materials threatens to kill or injure Americans to release radioactive contamination and to shut down major portions of our interstate highway system and rail system. When it comes to plans for Yucca Mountain, the fact remains that you can never eliminate the risks that will accompany shipping nuclear waste across more than 40 states, through communities utterly unprepared to deal with radioactive contamination. We're talking about shipments, passing homes, hospitals, schools, every single day for four decades, and even more incredible, at the end of those 40 years, there will even be more waste in the cooling ponds than there were when the shipments began, and that's because as long as the plant is operating, some amount of nuclear waste will always remain at the nuclear facility, and that is why the threat posed by Yucca Mountain must be weighed against the availability of dry cask storage as an affordable solution to this problem and it's available today. Using this method, we can secure waste at existing sites and hardened containers, where they can remain for the next hundred years until we figure out what to do with this garbage. The nuclear industry is already utilizing dry cask storage at various locations around the U.S.. There's no reason we should not require plans to begin moving waste right now from cooling pools into hardened containers. In conclusion, Nevada remains in case you don't already know, opposed to more wasteful spending on a failed $100 billion project that threatens lives, the environment and the economy of my community and others across the nation. I will lay my body down on those railroad tracks to prevent any train that has nuclear waste in it from going to Yucca Mountain. I make that pledge to you and the people I represent. Nuclear waste can remain on existing sites and dry cask storage for the next century, giving us time to find an actual solution to replace the failed Yucca Mountain project and if anybody watched what was happening in Japan, and still has the audacity to suggest this for the people of our country, shame on us all! And Germany just announced that they were ending their nuclear program because they have no way to safely store nuclear waste. If Germany can figure that out, by gosh, the United States of America should be able to figure that out too. I yield back the balance of my time. 29:00 Rep. Doc Hastings (WA): What is truly not workable is the uncertainty that faces our commercial nuclear power industry, as they look to a future that may require them to house spent nuclear fuel on a site for decades because there is no geological repository ready to accept it. 30:15 Rep. Doc Hastings (WA):My district is home to the Hanford nuclear site. Part of the top secret Manhattan project that developed and constructed the first atomic bomb. The work done at Hanford helped win WW II and later provided the nuclear deterrents that helped defeat communism and end the Cold War. Today, Hanford is the world's largest, the world's largest environmental cleanup project, and the high level defense nuclear waste at Hanford is slated to be shipped to the national repository at Yucca Mountain. Right now, the Department of Energy is building, right now, a building, a critical $12 billion plant that will treat 53 million gallons of high level defense waste currently stored in underground tanks at Hanford and turn it into safe, stable glass logs that are scheduled to be stored at Yucca Mountain. The waste treatment plant, which is a $12 billion plant, which is over halfway done, is being built to beat specifications designed to match the geological structure and makeup of Yucca Mountain. 32:00 Rep. Doc Hastings (WA): Delaying or abandoning Yucca Mountain means that Hanford will be home to high-level defense waste even longer. The federal government's legal commitment to our state won't be kept, and clean up progress at Hanford will be jeopardized. With more defense waste slated to go to Yucca mountain than any other state in the union, the stakes for my state of Washington cannot be higher and the risks could be not more, not more real. 32:30 Rep. Doc Hastings (WA): In addition, Richland, which is just south of the Hanford project, is the home to Pacific northwest only commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station. The spent nuclear fuel from this plant is also slated to go to Yucca mountain, but without Yucca opening, the spent fuel will have to be kept onsite for an unknown amount of time, at great expense to the taxpayers and rate payers. 1:33:00 Rep. Jay Inslee (WA): This is very disturbing on a couple of bases. One is, in my state, the state of Washington, we have people very diligently trying to follow their obligations legally and in their profession, getting this waste ready to ship to Yucca. They're going to be ready to ship 9,700 canisters to Yucca. They're doing their job, but the department's not doing its job. Now that's on a local concern, but on a national concern, I just think this situation is one of a failed state. You know, they talk about fail states around the world? This- because of the failure to follow the clear law here, this is the equivalency of a failed state. We reached a national decision. It is unpopular in one local part and a beautiful part of the country, as it will be in any part of the country that we ever have this decision made and yet we can't execute a decision. Now this, this sort of flagrant statement that social acceptance is now a legal criteria, I don't understand. I just ask Dr. Lyon, how are we ever to build anything like a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the United States if social acceptance is a mandatory criteria to build something? Dr. Peter Lyons: I use the example in my testimony of the waste isolation pilot plant in New Mexico, which has the strongest local acceptance, and I noted that there are a number of international examples where with careful education, with transparent processes, there has been strong acceptance of repository programs. 1:35:00 Rep. Jay Inslee (WA): And obviously in the decision making of the department based on the best science and geology and hydrology, we decided Nevada was the best place. But now you're telling me we're gonna maybe look for a less scientifically credible, less geologically stable, less hydrologically isolated place because we might get a little better social acceptance. That is a failed policy by a failed state and I have to just tell you, regardless who the administration is, in an abject failure to follow federal law here is most disturbing and it's unacceptable. And I don't really want to think I want to belabor you with too many more questions. I just want to tell you it's unacceptable by any administration of any party to make a decision when we're dealing with this number of curies of radiation based on social acceptance is an, is just a, not a, a winner for this country. 1:41:43 Gregory Friedman: Approximately 10% of Yucca mountain was designated as I am, as I recall, for a high level defense waste and spent nuclear-, defense spent nuclear waste. My understanding is that the current inventory of waste in that category exceeded, exceeds even the 10% of the Yucca mountain that was set, reserved for that purpose originally. 2:07:00 Martin Malsch: The original 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy act forsaw many of the problems which that now afflict the Yucca mountain program. Among other things, it sought fairness and redundancy by requiring multiple sites from which to choose ultimate locations for repositories and it's strove for regional equity by setting up site selection programs for two facilities, one in the west and one in the east. However, all this was scrapped in 1987. Congress decreed that all repository development efforts must focus now on just one site in Nevada and it did so not withstanding incomplete scientific information and the fact that now spent reactor fuel and high level waste from every region in the country would now be sent to a single western state with no nuclear power plants or high level waste generating facilities. After 1987, there was only one possible site and inevitably as more and more dollars were spent, it became progressively more difficult to admit that the selection of Yucca Mountain had been a mistake. But we know now things we did not know in 1987. We now know that groundwater will reach the wastes at the site in about 50 years, not the hundreds or thousands of years it had been originally thought. We now know the Yucca Mountain is not dry. Total of water seepage into the tunnels where the waste will be located will be as much as 130,000 kilograms per year. These and other serious problems led to even more exotic and doubtful engineering fixes. When it appeared likely that the Yucca Mountain site could not satisfy certain EPA and NRC licensing requirements, the requirements were simply eliminated. These actions by Congress and then by EPA DOE and NRC destroyed the credibility of the program. 2:18:00 Christopher Kouts: Because the development of Yucca mountain has been such a contentious and protracted process, it is being suggested that only consensual siting of these facilities should be pursued. I would submit to the subcommittee that the U.S. and international experience in this area proves otherwise. In my discussions over the years with the directors of repository programs abroad, they have consistently expressed their concerns that due to the very long time frame to repository programs take to develop, any political consensus at the beginning can evaporate with one election, just as it has in the U.S. with Yucca Mountain. At the end of the day, implementing a repository program requires steady, consistent national leadership. , House Energy and Commerce Committee, April 18, 2002 Witnesses: Jim Gibbons - then Representative followed by Governor of Nevada from 2007 to 2011 Spencer Abraham - Secretary of Energy from 2001-2005 Transcript: 41:45 Rep. Jim Gibbons (NV): The disposal of the nation's high level nuclear waste has been and remains an important issue for many Americans. However, for the past 20 years it has been the single most important issue for the state of Nevada. And just as a historical note, Mr Chairman, the Nuclear Waste Policy act of 1982 as amended in 1987, selected Nevada and Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be studied for consideration of a nuclear repository. It's very important to note Mr Chairman, under this law and its subsequent amendment, a finding that the site is suitable to become a high level waste repository for the next 10,000 years would require and I repeat, would require that the site be determined "geologically sound". Mr Chairman, as the person who holds a Master of Science degree from the University of Nevada in geology, I'm probably one of the few geologists in Congress, but I can tell you having looked at this, Yucca mountain is not, nor will it ever be geologically sound. If the site is geologically sound, why so much cost on the engineering aspect of this project? The answer is, you cannot spend enough money to make a mountain geologically sound. What will the DOI, DOE realize is that they can spend enough to make the manmade engineering barrier sound? The problem is that is not what the law requires. If you look at the fine print and if you look hard enough, you'll see that the DOE has failed to prove Yucca mountain's geologic suitability and they have made promises that they cannot keep. How do I know this and how do the American people know this? Because once DOE started digging and actually studying Yucca Mountain, they realized they would have to change the rules in order to meet the suitability standards mandated by Congress in the act. And what the DOE found out was this,-one, rates of water infiltration into the mountain are on the order of 100 times higher than previously thought. Two, credible studies indicate a significant presence of Basaltic volcanism in and around Yucca Mountain. Three, with Nevada ranking third in the nation in seismic activity, it has been determined that there have been nearly 700 cases of earthquake or seismic activity of 2.5 magnitude on a Richter scale or more near Yucca Mountain since 1976, that's 700 occurrences. In fact, about 10 years ago, a 5.6 level earthquake occurred less than 10 miles from Yucca Mountain and actually caused some damage to nearby DOE facilities. So what has been the DOE response to these findings? Findings that even the DOE themselves acknowledge? They retroactively changed the rules for site suitability. They moved the goalpost. You see, the DOE cannot prove Yucca Mountain's capability of serving as a longterm high level nuclear waste repository that is geologically sound. Their response? Adopt new rules, permitting the agency to rely entirely on man-made waste packages. Mr Chairman, I ask, is this what Congress intended? I don't think so. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD204: Why Brexit the EU?

12 november 2019 | 69 min

The European Union is a partnership of 28 countries that the United Kingdom has been trying to escape from since 2016. In this episode, we examine the European Union in order to understand the decision the citizens of the UK were asked to make and learn why the United States has become a theme in the Brexit debate. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes WTF is the Federal Reserve? The World Trade Organization: COOL? Fast Tracking Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority) Articles/Documents Article: By Simon Osborne, Express, November 4, 2019 Article: By By Selam Gebrekidan, Matt Apuzzo and Benjamin Novak, The New York Times, November 3, 2019 Article: By Abbie Llewelyn, Express, November 1, 2019 Article: By Phillip Inman, The Guardian, October 12, 2019 Article: By Lauren Simmonds, Total Croatia News, September 29, 2019 Article: By David Klemperer, Institute for Government, September 13, 2019 Document: Congressional Research Service Report, September 9, 2019 Article: by Chris Morris, BBC News, July 29, 2019 Article: by Christoph Strack, DW, July 16, 2019 Article: by Jane Mcintosh, DW, June 21, 2019 Article: by Thomas Fazi, Jacobin, May 23, 2019 Article: By Jim Chappelow, Investopedia, May 15, 2019 Article: by Rachel Schraer & Tom Edgington, BBC News, March 5, 2019 Article: by John Campbell, BBC News, January 16, 2019 Article: By Rebecca Beitsch, Brave New Europe, February 8, 2018 Article: By Nancy Fink Huehnergarth, Forbes, December 21, 2015 Document: By Elanor Starmer, Agricultural Marketing Service Additional Resources Documentary: , Directed by Itamar Klasmer, Starring Kate Quilton, Amazon Video, 2019 Bill Track 50 Dispute Settlement: , World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: , World Trade Organization Index: , World Trade Organization, October 24, 2019 Index: , CDC ETIAS NEWS ETIAS NEWS European Council - Council of the European Union European Commission European Commission European Commission European Commission Index: European Parliment Index: European Parliment Index: European Parliment Press Release: European Parliment, October 29, 2019 European Union European Union European Union North Atlantic Treaty Organization World Trade Organization Sound Clip Sources Parliment Meeting: , Parlimentlive.tv, October 19, 2019 Speakers: Lord Newby Reid of Cardigan Baroness Ludford Lord Rooker Transcript: 10:33:00 Lord Newby: My Lords, and your Lordship's house is sitting on a Saturday today for the first time since 1983, and only the fourth time in 80 years. These occasions have typically been to debate a serious foreign threat to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, the outbreak of the second world war, Suez, the Falklands. Today we sit on a Saturday to try to resolve a serious internal threat to the unity and future of the conservative party. There is no reason other than the prime minister's macho commitment to leave the EU by the 31st of October for the government's decision to recall parliament today. Such a timetable is a complete abuse of the parliamentary process. It doesn't allow the appropriate impact assessments to be made, it doesn't allow the relevant select committees to consider the proposals, and it doesn't allow the commons in your Lordship's house to give proper consideration to the withdrawal bill. It barely gives us time to read and compare the documents. The withdrawal agreement itself, some 535 pages, was available for the first time from Nobel -- to pick up from the printer paper office just this morning. And so we certainly have not had time to identify and work out what some of the changes mean. For example, the sections in the political declaration on dispute settlement and the forward process had been substantially rewritten. Why? Parliament today is being asked to approve these changes with no effective ability to question the ministers on them. It is a disgrace. 10:39:00 Lord Newby; And the impact on the union with Scotland is also clear. Northern Ireland will have freer access to EU markets than Scotland. Scotland, understandably, we want the same, and the only way they can get it is by independence. This deal is a further recruiting Sergeant for the -- 11:07:00 Reid of Cardigan: And to those who say, but we can rely on our allies bailing as out economically, I didn't know --, particularly the president of the United States, because he's a reliable man -- once. I suggest you have a word with the Kurds and see whether you want to reflect upon them. 11:14:00 Baroness Ludford: No -- the leader spoke of the wonderful perspective of international trade deals. President Trump has just imposed a 25% tariff on imports of single malt whiskey. Smaller independent whiskey producers face having their quote "feet taken out from under them", said one. Compare this with how the EU has used its clout to leave open markets in Asia for scotch whiskey that were previously heavily protected by tariff walls. We cannot trust president Trump. 12:02:15 Lord Rooker: The push for a free trade agreement with America, the food poisoning capital of the West, where food poisoning rates are 10 times in the UK per head of population, will have consequences. And on a very minor point of detail, I realize that, research published in the UK only last year proves that chlorine washing of food does not kill all the bugs. And that's the microbiology society. And given the United States of America has over 400 people a year die of salmonella compared to none here, it seems to be the case we're heading for very serious consequences of life and death. Parliment Meeting: , Parlimentlive.tv, October 19, 2019 Speakers: Boris Johnson Jeremy Corbyn Kier Starmer Transcript: 9:49:00 Boris Johnson: Speaker: I have complete faith in this house to choose regulations that are in our best tradition of the highest standard -- of the highest standards of environmental protections and workers' rights. No one, no one anywhere in this chamber believes in lowering standards. Instead, the loss of gesticulation, the statement by the prime minister, must be heard, and it will be. The prime minister -- no one believes in lowering standards; instead we believe in improving them, as indeed we will be able to do, as we will be able to do, and seizing the opportunities of our new, freedoms, for example, free from the common agricultural policy. We will have a far simpler system where we will reward farmers for improving our environment and animal welfare. Many of whose provisions are impossible under the counter agents. Instead of just paying them for their acreage and free from the common fisheries policy, we can ensure sustainable yields based on the latest science, not outdated methods of setting quotas. And these restored powers will be available not simply to this government, but to every future British government of any party to use as they see fit. That is what restoring sovereignty means. That is what was meant in practice by taking back control of our destiny. 9:59:00 Jeremy Corbyn: This deal, Mr. Speaker, what inevitably and absolutely inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal, forcing the UK, forcing the UK to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families once again to chlorine washed chicken and hormone treated beef. 10:02:00 Jeremy Corbyn: And if anyone had any doubts about this, we only have to listen to what their own honorable members have been saying. Like the one yesterday who rather let the cat out of the bag saying members should back this deal, as it means we can leave with no deal by 2020. The cat has truly got out of the bag. So can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is the case and that if a free trade agreement has not been done, it would mean Britain falling on to world trade organization terms by December next year with only Northern Ireland having preferential access to the EU market? No wonder the foreign secretary said this represents, and I quote, "a cracking deal for Northern Ireland." They would retain frictionless access to the single market. It does beg the question, Mr. Speaker, why can't the rest of the UK get a cracking deal by maintaining access to the single market? 12:30:00 Kier Starmer: But it's obvious where it leads because once you've diverged, once you've moved out of alignment with the EU, trade becomes more difficult. I will just finish the point, trade becomes more difficult and the EU is not seen any longer as our priority in trade and the gaze goes elsewhere to make up. I'll finish this point, if I may, I will finish this point. Because once you've moved out of alignment, you don't move back. And the further you may move out, the less easy it is to trade with the EU 27. And once you've done that, you've broken the economic model we've been operating for decades. And once you've done that, you look elsewhere. Once you've done that, you look across to the United States. I will finish this point and then I'll give way. The gaze goes across to the US and that's a different economic model. It's not just another country, it's a different economic model, a deregulated model. In the US, 10 days is the holiday entitlement. Many, many contracts at work, I'll pull contracts at will. Hugely powerful corporate bodies have far more power than the workforce. So this is a political direction of travel, not a technical decision on the EU, that takes us to a different economic model, one of deregulation, one of low standards, one where the balance between the workforce and corporate bodies gets far worse than it is now. Interview: , CBS NEWS, October 20, 2019 Interview: John Dickerson - Interviewer Christine Lagarde Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD203: Scattering Interior

31 oktober 2019 | 70 min

Public land belongs to all Americans and the bureaus of the Interior Department are responsible for balancing conservation and resource extraction on our land. The Trump administration is making some major changes to this important agency which few Americans are aware of. In this episode, learn what their plans are, how those plans are being implemented, and who stands to benefit from the changes. Spoiler alert! Fossil fuel companies will be pleased. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Fossil Fuel Foxes Articles/Documents Article: By Allayana Darrow, The Sheridan Press | Via Wyoming News Exchange, October 23, 2019 Article: By Timothy Cama, E&E News, September 30, 2019 Article: By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, September 28, 2019 Article: By Ben Lefebvre, Politico, September 27, 2019 Article: By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, August 29, 2019 Article: By Shane Goldmacher, The New York Times, August 26, 2019 Article: By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, August 22, 2019 Letter: Tom Udall and Betty McCollum, August 22, 2019 Article: By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, August 21, 2019 Article: FEDweek, August 21, 2019 Article: by Heather Richards, E&E News, August 21, 2019 Article: By Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, July 31, 2019 Article: By Coral Davenport and Lisa Friedman, The New York Times, July 22, 2019 Article: By Heather Richards, E&E News, July 16, 2019 Report: By Ramón A. Alvarez, Daniel Zavala-Araiza, David R. Lyon, David T. Allen, Zachary R. Barkley, Adam R. Brandt, Kenneth J. Davis, Scott C. Herndon, Daniel J. Jacob, Anna Karion, Eric A. Kort, Brian K. Lamb, Thomas Lauvaux, Joannes D. Maasakkers, Anthony J. Marchese, Mark Omara, Stephen W. Pacala, Jeff Peischl, Allen L. Robinson, Paul B. Shepson, Colm Sweeney, Amy Townsend-Small, Steven C. Wofsy, Steven P. Hamburg, Science Magazine, Vol. 361, Issue 6398, pp. 186-188, July 13, 2018 Article: By Ryan W. Miller and Doyle Rice, USA TODAY, May 13, 2019 Article: By Anthony Adragna and Ben Lefebvre, Politico, May 10, 2019 Article: By Michael Doyle, Politico, May 8, 2019 Article: By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, April 15, 2019 Article: By Kevin Crowley and Ryan Collins, Bloomberg, April 10, 2019 Article: By Chris D’Angelo, High Country News, April 12, 2019 Article: By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, April 4, 2019 Article: By Eric Lipton, The New York Times, March 26, 2019 Article: By Darryl Fears and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, March 15, 2019 Article: By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, February 12, 2019 Article: By Darryl Fears, Juliet Eilperin, and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, December 15, 2018 Article: By Lisa Friedman, The New York Times, November 16, 2018 Article: By Rebecca Leber, Mother Jones, October 9, 2018 Article: By Rebecca Elliott, The Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2018 Article: By Eric Lipton, The New York Times, August 19, 2018 Article: By David Bernhardt, The Washington Post, August 9, 2018 Article: By Lisa Friedman, Kendra Pierre-Louis and Livia Albeck-Ripka, The New York Times, July 19, 2018 Article: By Shannon Van Sant, npr, June 21, 2018 Article: By Charles S. Clark, Government Executive, June 21, 2018 Resignation Letter: By Joel Clement, The Washington Post, October 4, 2017 Article: By Joel Clement, The Washington Post, July 19, 2017 Document: , June 20, 2017 Article: By Juliet Ellperin and Lisa Rein, The Washington Post, June 16, 2017 Executive Order 13781: Executive Office of the President, Federal Register, March 13, 2017 Article: by Valerie Volcovici, Reuters, December 5, 2016 Article: by William Perry Pendley, National Review, January 19, 2016 Press Release: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, June 15, 2010 Article: by Philip Shabecoff, The New York Times, February 9, 1984 Additional Resources Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Interior, October 24, 2019 , U.S. Department of the Interior, August 19, 2019 , U.S. Department of the Interior, August 19, 2019 , U.S. Department of the Interior, August 19, 2019 , U.S. Department of the Interior Index: , U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Memorandum: U.S. Department of the Interior, August 9, 2019 YouTube Video: , Mother Jones, February 7, 2019 Petition: May 17, 2017 Document: Charity Navigator: Department of Influence Leadership - Scott Cameron: Linkedin Page: GAO - U.S. Government Accountability Office Page: Representative Summary: Website: Sound Clip Sources Full Committee Hearing: , Committee on Natural Resources, September 26, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witnesses: William Perry Pendley - Deputy Director for Policy and Programs at the Bureau of Land Management Tony Small - Vice Chairman of the Ute Indian Tribal Business Committee Edward Shephard - President of the Public Lands Foundation Hearing: , Committee on Natural Resources, September 10, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witnesses: William Perry Pendley - Deputy Director for Policy and Programs at the Bureau of Land Management Tony Small - Vice Chairman of the Ute Indian Tribal Business Committee Edward Shephard - President of the Public Lands Foundation Transcript: 21:30 William Perry Pendley:We need to have the energy, mineral and realty management experts, who are now in Washington, out in the field with the state offices to work hand in glove with tribal leaders on tribal lands to ensure their ability to develop the resources. Congress passed last year, in 2018, a change to that law to permit more of these agreements. We're working aggressively with the BIA to have those agreements, and I'll be a very, very strong advocate for tribes being able to enter into those agreements to take over the oil and gas leasing functions on their land if that's their decision to do so. 52:15 Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): Grand Junction is not necessarily where everyone is going to go. We're also moving people to New Mexico. You're moving people to Arizona, to Nevada, over to Utah, up to Idaho, where their function can be better enhanced by being in those local particular areas. So this is not just a wholesale move from at stadium to Grand Junction. You're covering the entire West, and you're going to allow a greater expertise and a greater experience throughout the entire area in which you find BLM lands, right? William Perry Pendley: That's absolutely the case. We have 74 people going to various state offices to perform SAIDI office functions. We have 222 people going to state office to perform headquarters' functions. Nearly every, well, not nearly, every Western state will benefit from the infusion of experts. Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): We all will benefit, and I appreciate that. Yes, sir. 55:40 Rep. Jody Hice (GA): How will the American people be able to visualize and experience some of the, how they themselves, how Americans are going to be better served, if the leadership and the resources are moved closer to the actual places that are impacted and involved with BLM. William Perry Pendley:Congressman, I think one of the ways is better decision making earlier in the process. None of us like the logjam that we've seen, for example, with national environmental policy act, where we have endless litigation, and makes it difficult for things, rubber to hit the road, and whether we're doing a recreational project or grazing renewal or oil and gas operations, whatever we're doing, they get bogged down. And one of the things the secretary has done is forced those decisions out into the field with sectoral or 3355 to shorten our NEPA process and get it done right. And one of the ways we can most effectively do that is having our top people in the field. 1:04:30 Rep. Dianna Degette (CO): 35 of those people said they're going, of the 177 you have now, they said they're not going to move to the West. Do you have people in the West who are qualified who say they're going to take that job? William Perry Pendley: If I could slightly correct the statement, that is an estimate that our policy budget and management people made, calculating that typically 25%... Rep. Dianna Degette (CO): The find 25% that want to go there? William Perry Pendley: No, no. It's simply a rough calculation, okay, we've got to make some numbers. We're going to try to get a number to provide Congress. What's our PHCS code? Rep. Dianna Degette (CO):Understand. Did they get the number on the other side of how many more people would want to come in? Do you have that number? William Perry Pendley: I don't have that number. Rep. Dianna Degette (CO): Thank you very much. 1:33:30 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC):Would you, to this committee, promise to have before this committee, a survey of staff so that the committee will have information on how many will refuse and how many will be glad to move to Grand Junction? William Perry Pendley:We're going to be meeting with people one on one. We're going to be meeting with family members. We're going to be asking their personal needs and be responsive to those needs. I don't think we can provide that information because that's going to be a one-on-one employee to employee discussion. 1:54:15 Tony Small: Moving BLM to Grand Junction will impact energy permitting on our lands. No one is talking about moving the White House or Congress to Grand Junction or any other agencies involved in energy permitting on Indian lands. Moving BLM will reduce coordination, drain expertise, eliminate accountability. Rather than drain the swamp, BLM will become a tool of special interest and will lose focus on its national missions, including trust responsibility to tribes. Grand Junction is in our original homelands. In 1880 we entered into an agreement with United States to give up millions of acres and to resettle along the grand river, near modern day Grand Junction. These lands were rich with water resources, but the United States forces us at gunpoint further West into what would become Eastern Utah. In this rocky desert, a 1.9 million acre reservation was established for our benefit. Ever since, our Kopavi reservation in Utah has been under attack. First, non Indians overgraze lands intended for our stock, and today BLM permits energy development on our lands. -- have been made and energy leases and royalties on our own Kopavi reservation. BLM splits this money with the state. We have never been paid for the use of our lands. Year after year, the United States forces us to go to court to protect our lands and enforce treaties, agreements, and trust responsibilities. This must stop. 2:34:15 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC): If this proposal were to go through, there would be virtually no headquarter staff, and there would be, it would be the only agency that did not have a headquarters staff present here in the nation's capital. It is an extreme proposal to put it mildly. 2:35:45 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC): And you reference that there had been past reorganization efforts, that they had been problematic, and even ultimately reversed. I wonder if you have any detail you could offer the committee on prior reorganizations of any kind. Edward Shephard: I can. One example that I can give from my personal experience, when I was back on forestry staff here in Washington DC, is we moved a lot of folks West to, what we call, centers of excellence. And when they went out to the West they became a part of that state. Whether it was intended to or not, that's just human nature. They became part of that state organization and a lot of the knowledge of what went on, if you went to Oregon, you didn't know what was going on in Utah, Colorado, because you were in that state, you concentrated on that state. And you also, the way this reorganization was, you won't even have, and that way in '91 also you don't have the benefit of going over, if you're a forester and you're making a decision on a policy level thing, you can't walk over to the wildlife staff that also does policy because they're not there. And that's an issue that's gonna happen with this reorganization. You need to work together between interdisciplinary teams and it won't be there when they're spread out all over the place. Full Committee Hearing: , Committee on Natural Resources, July 25, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witnesses Andrew Rosenberg, PhD - Director at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists Joel Clement - Senior Fellow at the Arctic Institute Daren Baskst - Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Maria Caffrey, PhD - Former partner of the National Park Service Transcript: 34:00 Andrew Rosenberg: Some examples of attacks at the Department of Interior selected from our research are as follows. The Fish and Wildlife service bowed to political pressure and circumvented our comprehensive assessment of impacts on endangered species of a proposed city size development in southeastern Arizona. Department suppressed 18 memos from staff scientists raising concerns about proposed oil and gas operations in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, and they defunded landscape conservation cooperatives effectively censoring climate change adaptation information for state and local governments. Department of Interior published an analysis of gray wolves that was riddled with errors, scientific errors, as identified by peer reviewers and that analysis then extensively supported removing endangered species act protections for this species. And DOI officials blocked the release of a comprehensive analysis on potential dangers of widely used pesticides for hundreds of endangered species, as the chairman noted, 1400. 39:05 Joel Clement: As Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, it was my job to understand the most recent scientific and analytical information regarding matters that affected the mission of the agency and to communicate that information agency leadership. I never assumed that agency leadership would make their decisions based entirely on that information, but I did assume they'd taken into consideration. And that proved true for the first 6 years of my time at Interior. It all ended with the arrival of the Trump political team, which as I'll describe later on, has sidelines scientists and experts, flattened the morale of the career staff, and by all accounts has bent on hollowing out the agency. Now the career staff at interior are not partisan in the work. They have a job to do, they do it well. Of course, they know that an incoming Republican administration is likely to favor resource extraction of a conservation. The vice versa is true, but they've pledged to support and defend the constitution, advance the mission of the agency regardless of their beliefs. But what if their leaders are trying to break down the agency? What if their directives run counter to the agency mission as directed by Congress? What if the political appointees are intentionally suppressing the science that indicates that doing more harm than good and putting American's and the American economy at risk? These days, career staff have to ask themselves these questions nearly every day, or at least decide where their red line is. For me, the Trump administration crossed it by putting American health and safety at risk and wasting taxpayer dollars. Here's how that went down. Science tells us that rapid climate change is impacting every single aspect of the agency mission, and it was my job to evaluate and explain these threats. For example, as the federal trustee for American Indians and Alaska natives, Interior is partially responsible for the wellbeing, uh, but with over 30 Alaska native villages listed by the government accountability office, as acutely threatened by the impacts of climate change, it should be a top priority for Interior to help get these Americans out of harm's way as soon as possible. I was working with an inter-agency team to address this issue, speaking very publicly about the need for DOI to address climate impacts, and I paid that price. Uh, one week after speaking at the U.N, uh, on the importance of building climate resilience, I receive an evening email telling me had been reassigned to the auditing office that collects royalty checks from oil, gas, and mining industries. I have no experience in accounting or in auditing. It was pretty clear to me and my colleagues that this was retaliation for my work highlighting Interior's responsibilities as they pertain to climate change and protecting American citizens. So I blew the whistle. I was not alone. Dozens of other senior executives received reassignment notices in that night's purge. The ensuing inspector general investigation revealed the political team had broken every single one of the office of personnel management guidelines for reassigning senior executives, and they left no paper trail to justify their actions. 41:50 Joel Clement: There are many more instances of the agency directly suppressing science. Among them, reports that Secretary Bernhardt ignored and failed to disclose over a dozen internal memos expressing concern about the impacts of oil and gas exploration on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Former Secretary Zinke, canceling a national academy study on the health impacts of coal mining, right before lifting a moratorium on coal leasing. Zinke again, instituting a political review of science grants led by an old football buddy that was, that has bottle-necked research funding and led to cancelled research and the U.S. Geological survey eliminating their entire climate change mission area. The list goes on and on. Not only does this group ignore science and expertise, they crossed the line by actively suppressing it at the expense of American health and safety, our public lands and the economy. They're intentionally leaving their best player on the bench. 1:08:10 Rep. Deb Haaland (MN): Who took over the work that you were doing for those Alaska native communities, that incredibly important work. Who took that over after you were gone? Joel Clement: They've never replaced me and that work ceased. Rep. Deb Haaland (MN): They've never replaced you? Joel Clement: No. Several months later they found a political appointee to sit in the office, but he has since moved on upstairs. 1:10:05 Rep. Deb Haaland (MN): Why do you believe this reassignment was done out of retaliation and wasn't simply a policy decision by leadership? Joel Clement: I don't see any chance that that was a policy decision. I think it was purely punitive and retaliatory for two reasons. One, of course, to take the climate adviser and put them in the office that collects royalty checks is clearly an indication they want, they wanted me to quit. But also, the very next week, Secretary Zinke came to the hill and testified during a budget hearing, that indeed he did want to use reassignments to trim the workforce at DOI by 4,000 people. I don't think he realized the reassignments don't trim the workforce unless you're getting people to quit, and that's unlawful. 1:45:30 Rep. Paul Gosar: I don't think anybody denies that, that climate is always changing. I think there is nobody that will say that, but I think the priorities is what can man do and what cannot man do? Like i.e., the Sun. Would you agree with me that the Sun has more implications on our weather and climate than does man? Joel Clement: The uh, the climate has certainly always changed, there's no question about that. The climate has not changed at this pace and to this extent during the course of human civilization. Rep. Paul Gosar: Oh, well, has the earth changed dramatically before man? Joel Clement: It certainly has. During the time of the Dinosaurs, of course, they were wiped out by a very dramatic change. Rep. Paul Gosar: It did. Full Committee Hearing: , Committee on Natural Resources, May 15, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witness David Bernhardt: Secretary of the Interior Transcript: 1:36:45 Rep. Mike Levin (CA): Yes or no? Is there any doubt that you have a legal obligation to take into account the needs of future generations and manage the public lands to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation, now and in the future? David Bernhardt: We certainly have a need to take them into account. We are taking them into account. Rep. Mike Levin (CA): Yet when we met, you claimed that Congress hasn't given you enough direction to address climate change. David Bernhardt: What I specifically said is you haven't given me any direction to stop any particular activity and if you want to stop it, you need to give us that direction. The reality is we comply, we are compliant with NEPA. Rep. Mike Levin (CA): Mr Bernhardt, Secretary, what type of direction would you want Congress to give you to make it in every year? David Bernhardt: Whatever you think you can do to stop it, if that's what you want to do, go for it. But, but that should happen in this body. That's not something the Department of Interior does with the magic wand. 2:39:40 Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA): So I was reading the newspaper this week and it hit the headlines that two days ago, that carbon dioxide levels hit 415 parts per million, which is the highest in human history, the highest in 800,000 years. Did you happen to see that secretary? David Bernhardt: I didn't see that particular fact.... Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA): Well that was on the front page of USA Today, and I'll ask unanimous consent that the article titled "Carbon Dioxide levels hit landmark at 415 parts per million, highest in human history", be made part of the record. And that was of course when there were no humans the last time it, it hit that kind of level and so my question for you is on a scale, and this is a number question, I'm looking for a number secretary. On a scale of one to 10, how concerned are you about that? David Bernhardt: Well, what I will say is I believe that the United States..... Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA): ...And 10 being the most concerned and one being the least concerned, what's your number? David Bernhardt: I believe the United States is number one in terms of decreasing CO2. Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA): Did you hear me all right Secretary? I'm asking you what's your number of your level of concern about that? On a scale of one to 10, 10 being the most concerned, what's your number for how concerned you are about us hitting 415 parts per million of carbon dioxide? David Bernhardt: I haven't lost any sleep over it. C-SPAN Broadcast: , Mother Jones, May 7, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witness: David Bernhardt: Secretary of the Department of the Interior Transcript: 27:35 David Bernhardt: I recognize that climate is changing. I recognize that man is a contributing factor. 29:00 David Bernhardt: Are we going to stop Welland Gas Development because of this report? The answer to that is no. Congress, you all have the ability to decide whether we do anything on federal lands and you've decided the lands that we manage. You've decided a whole host of different range of things. On some things you've decided that it's wilderness and should be enjoyed for the solitude and enjoyment of people and untrammeled by man. On other things, you've decided that this is a national park and it should be managed that way. And on other areas you've decided that the land is for multiple use. We go through a planning process. That planning process can result in some areas that are for solitude, other areas are for multiple use, but at the end of the day we also have the Mineral Leasing Act. And if you have a view on what you want to happen, we'll carry it out when you execute it. And that is my position. 44:45 David Bernhardt: If I were to ask for a Lexis or Westlaw search, and for somebody to give me the number of times that the secretary is directed to do something, you'd find that there are over 600 instances in law that says, I shall do something. There's not a "shall" for "I shall manage the land to stop climate change" or something similar to that. There's a "shall" that tells me to provide people to work on reports. There's some authorization, but there's no "shalls". 53:40 Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ): Obviously I want to talk to you a little bit about drilling off the coast. Democrats and Republicans, we kind of agree on this issue. There were in opposition to drilling off the coast of Atlantic, so our state has been very concerned about this administration's proposal to open up the outer continental shelf to drilling. I certainly was pleased to hear that those plans are on hold, but it's very concerning that the administration is planning to proceed with the seismic air gun testing. A practice that causes extreme injury to marine animals, including dolphins and whales. Considering the harm to wildlife, what is the justification for engaging in seismic testing when there is a little prospect of offshore drilling anytime soon? David Bernhardt: Well what we do is we receive these applications and we process them. I don't think we're at a stage where any have been approved. But we go through the process. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ): What applications are you talking about? David Bernhardt: The seismic applications. And my view would be that there's seismic that occurs out there for other things already that don't need a permit from a bone. But we'll go through and we'll do our analysis. We'll make our decision and I think the way the regulations written, if we say that there's a problem with the permit, then we need to explain how their application could be corrected. My own view is, we shouldn't be afraid of information, if we can do it lawfully and it can be done responsibly. The data itself is not something that we should be afraid of. 1:02:15 David Bernhardt: On my first day as deputy, the secretary pulled me into his office and said, "your first job is to deal with Sage-Grouse. And I'd spent my entire career avoiding Sage-Grouse both at the department and the private sector. 1:05:00 Rep. Mike Simpson (ID): I'm not anti Sage-Grouse. It's a species we've got to make sure it doesn't get on the listing and our language to prevent listing in the past has been so that there's progress can be made outside of the courts, frankly. Because it's going to be done by the Department of Interior, by the states, by the local communities, and not by a judge. 1:08:25 Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): The oversight committee on natural resources are investigating whether your staff has been complying with transparency and record keeping laws, including whether records related to your daily schedule was deleted or withheld from disclosure. On March 28th, the committee sent you a joint letter requesting transcribed interviews with four employees familiar. It has been over five weeks since the committee issued the letter and the Interior has not scheduled the interviews or allowed the employee to contact. What are you doing and when do you plan on scheduling these witnesses for interviews? David Bernhardt: Well, I think we've sent the committee tens of thousands of pages of documents. They'll see every single calendar entry made from the day. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): But we're talking about.... David Bernhardt: We have every single document. You have so much to review. We've offered a briefing.... Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): But we as Congress asked for them to come and, last time I checked, you don't determine how we get our information. I appreciate what you sent, but the issue on the table is scheduling the witnesses for interviews and you sir, are the person who's responsible to set the tone. So I want to know, when do you plan on scheduling these witnesses? David Bernhardt: I want to be very clear here. We have offered additional briefings. We've offered material and at the right, we think it's not the appropriate time for interviews. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): So your position is that you have the right to tell Congress when and what, how the information will be.... David Bernhardt: Of course not, but we do have a right to have a process that's fair and responsive and know.... Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): So you think the process isn't fair and responsive? David Bernhardt: In all candor, you sent these secretaries requests and they obviously have to make their choice, but you're talking about individual employees that have been long standing employees within the department and when you want to shoot at me, that's comes with the territory. But these are people, we have wonderful career employees here that are very, they've never had this happen to them in their career and I just think people ought to think about that for a minute. 1:13:00 Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Four days into your tenure, the inspector general opened an ethics investigation into a "wide assortment of questionable conduct on your part". So, spare us that we're coming after your career employees, as you say, this is about you and the questions raised, leaving meetings with questionable private interest off your public calendar and changing your public calendar, which may violate federal record laws, rolling back endangered species protections to benefit your former clients, engaging in illegal lobbying activities and blocking scientific study on the impact of certain pesticides on several endangered species to benefit the makers of these pesticides. 1:28:15 Rep. Betty McCollum (MN): Does the DOI have a comprehensive plan for the proposed reorganization? And some of this I know you're probably going to get back to me on, so I'll read the others. David Bernhardt: I, um.... Rep. Betty McCollum (MN): Because the committee today has not received anything. David Bernhardt: I think I committed to you months ago that if this moved forward, you'd get a detailed plan. And I think you can say that you don't have a detailed plan. We have a spend plan that we brought today. I'll give you, but I know for a while that we need to have a plan that will pass muster for you. 1:30:10 Rep. Betty McCollum (MN): So, let me tie that back to what is going on with tribal consultation. Mr. Cameron's statement also in the Committee on Oversight and investigations, and I quote for him. "After much input from the department's career senior executive staff, Congress, governors, and external stakeholders, including consultation with Indian tribal leaders, a map was finalized in the unified regions, took effect on August 22nd 2018". According to your website, the unified regional boundary map was published on July 20, 2018, however; the first tribal consultation occurred on June 30th and the final consultation occurred on August 23rd. So it's clear from the timeline that the tribal consultation was, it appears to be an afterthought to the reorganization and... 1:34:00 David Bernhardt: Let me be very, very clear. We are not reorganizing as part of the unified regions in any way. The BIA or BIE, they wanted out of it. 1:58:15 Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): Tell us how the things I talked about, like reducing tests to key equipment such as blowout preventers is a compromise? David Bernhardt: The fact of the matter is the more you test equipment, also leads to the greater likelihood that it will fail and... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): When you take that, so the logical conclusion, we've never tested theirs. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing: , Committee on Natural Resources, April 30, 2019 Watch on YouTube: Witnesses: Scott Cameron - Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget at the Department of Interior Worked at the Interior Department during the GWB administration. Between his Interior gigs for GWB and Trump, Cameron spent four years working at Dawson and Associates, a lobbying firm that represents lots of companies in the fossil fuel industry. Harold Frazier - Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Michael Bromwich - Founder and Managing Principle of the Bromwich Group Former Justice Department Inspector General and U.S. Assistant Attorney Has investigated and helped reform police departments and conducted investigations of the FBI, returning damning results. Was one of the prosecutors of Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. Jamie Rappaport-Clark - President and CEO at Defenders of Wildlife Former Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service during the Clinton administration Transcript: 9:45 Rep. T.J. Cox (CA): One of the first things Ryan Zinke did after becoming secretary was try to implement massive solution in search of a problem. The weakness in that approach to reorganizing the 70,000 employee department of the Interior, It became clear early in the process. We have not seen data to show that there is a problem. We've not seen data to prove that every organization was the way to solve the problem, nor have we seen a cost benefit analysis or workforce planning data, no measurable goals, no comprehensive plan, and that's worth repeating, a massive reorganization and we have seen no plan. 11:20 Rep. T.J. Cox (CA): The actions that have been taken so far in the name of the reorganization have already had significant impacts. Starting in 2017, dozens of the most experienced, the most effective employees were moved out of their positions into positions for which they had no qualifications or interest, and with very little notice. 12:35 Rep. T.J. Cox (CA): To try to uphold our constitutional prerogative to provide oversight on this major undertaking, this committee has repeatedly sought information from interior. We've been repeatedly denied. 19:55 Scott Cameron: Uh, the departments where reorganization is in response to President Trump's 2017 executive order to reorganize the executive branch to better meet the needs of the American people in the 21st century. Our Agency's reform plan highlights the need to modernize and plan for the next 100 years of land and water resource management. The first and very significant step we took toward reorganization was to create 12 unified regions that aligned most of our bureaus with within shared geographic boundaries and more importantly, shared geographic perspectives. After much input from the departments, career senior executive staff, Congress, governors, and external stakeholders, including consultations with Indian tribal leaders, the map was finalized and the unified regions took effect on August 22, 2018. 22:35 Scott Cameron: We have also proposed moving elements of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey headquarters operations west, to bring them closer to the public that they interact with most frequently. 24:25 Harold Frazier: Now when this reorganization happened, um, as tribes in the Great Plains area, and I'm sure throughout the United States, we were never properly consulted. When they come to the region, the Great Plains region, we were given a picture of a map. That's all we were given. We weren't given any plans over the purpose of, -how, or why this change is needed or how it's going to benefit our people. It was never done. That's all we were given. 29:10 Michael Bromwich: My testimony will focus on the first principles that should guide a significant government reorganization and how they were applied to the reorganization we undertook at interior following the oil spill. First, a bit of background. In late April, 2010, Deep Water Horizon rig was conducting exploratory drilling in the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig experienced a violent blowout that killed 11 people and injured many others. It was a human tragedy of major proportions, but also an enormous environmental tragedy. In early June, 2010 I was asked by President Obama to lead the agency responsible for the oversight of offshore drilling. At the time, known as the Minerals Management Service or MMS. We took immediate steps to modify the rules governing offshore drilling, but we also looked at whether the government's organizational structure for managing it was the right fit for the risks that it posed. We ultimately concluded that it was not, but not before we developed a detailed understanding of the way the agency operated and the costs and benefits of changing that structure. The agency was responsible for three very different missions, collecting royalties and revenues for the offshore program, making balanced resource decisions and developing and enforcing regulations governing offshore activities. These three missions conflicted with each other and the history of the agency demonstrated that revenue collection was emphasized at the expense of the other missions. By the time I arrived at DOI, six weeks after the initial explosion, discussions had already begun about reorganizing MMS to eliminate its structural conflicts, but I was given the discretion to decide whether or not to do it. I don't take reorganizations lightly. I have a bias against them. They are disruptive, expensive, frustrating, and they tend to depress morale. They create uncertainty and divert resources. They frequently fail to achieve their objectives. Reorganizations are too often undertaken for reasons of executive vanity. They are developed and implemented in haste, inadequately vetted based on inadequate analysis and insufficient consultations with stakeholders, including the personnel responsible for implementing them. They are a way for a new executive or executive team to put their imprint on an organization, whether the changes make any sense or not. Those are bad reasons for undertaking a reorganization, but those are the reasons that many are undertaken. In the case of MMS, we became convinced that a reorganization was necessary and appropriate, but only after careful study and consideration of less disruptive alternatives. I want to emphasize that when we began the process, there was no preordained outcome. We did not decide on the reorganization that was ultimately implemented and then work backwards to justify it. Instead, we undertook a detailed process together with outside consultants who are experts in organizational diagnosis and reorganizations. We considered a number of less sweeping changes, including changes to staffing levels, enhanced training, and other organizational tweaks. In the end, our analysis and discussions pointed to a broad reorganization and my prepared statement goes into detail into the various steps we took during the process. Throughout the process, we were extraordinarily open about what we were doing. We were open with the agencies personnel, with DOI, with the congress, and with the public. We spoke frequently about what we were doing and why we were doing it. The broad contours and most of the specifics of the reorganization were embraced by members of Congress of both parties. In the more than seven years since the reorganization was completed, its wisdom has been demonstrated. I've just told in very abbreviated form, the story of a rare species, a successful government reorganization. As I said at the outset, I know very few of the details of the proposed and far broader DOI organization that is the subject of this hearing, but I gather I'm not alone because the details of the reorganization have not been shared widely with agency personnel, the Congress, or the public, including local stakeholders, communities, and Native American tribes. That's a problem. I'm aware of no internal or external studies of any kind that have made the affirmative case for the proposed DOI reorganization. I am aware of no analyses or studies that have presented the anticipated benefits of the reorganization and balanced them against anticipated costs. 34:05 Jamie Rappaport-Clark: With more than 20 years of service with the federal government, I have personal experience with reorganization initiatives and with leading mission driven organizations. I believe the administration's current effort to reorganize Department of the Interior distracts from its vitally important mission. Waste scarce, fiscal and human resources disrupts the essential and lawful functions of interior bureaus, reduces staff capacity and seriously undermines employee morale. To succeed, there must be clarity, not only on the problems posed by the existing structure, but how the proposal will measurably improve performance. Impacts to personnel and operations must be explicitly considere and transparency and public engagement across all affected sectors, vitally important. The administration has not satisfied these fundamental criteria. Their plan suffers from a lack of crucial details, transparency, accountability, and public engagement. They have never really described a compelling need for reorganization. Consideration of critical questions about the scope, purpose, impacts, benefits, and risks of such a radical transformation have not been reconciled. 35:45 Jamie Rappaport-Clark: A unified military command is fundamentally inappropriate for coordinating interior bureaus. A distinct mission and responsibility for each bureau are established by law. Those missions sometimes align, but sometimes diverge or even conflict, and that's by design. Certainly bureaus can and should coordinate their actions better to achieve timely outcomes, but they cannot be legally subordinated to the control of a single unified regional directorship. The administration's proposal of 12 unified regions cut through watersheds, they cut through states and even individual public lands units, confounding management and complicating relationships with partners, overlaying new regions atop current agency boundaries or fracture relationships developed with stakeholders over many years. 37:00 Jamie Rappaport-Clark: Given this administration's agenda of energy dominance on the public domain and continuous attacks on our conservation laws and regulations, it's fair to question whether their purpose is to support their policy priorities and weaken the effectiveness of conservation programs rather than to achieve objectives of efficiency and public service in carrying out the Interior department's complex and multidimensional mission. 42:30 Scott Cameron : Because we respect the sovereignty of Indian tribes, we were not willing to impose, if you will look, the involvement of BIA and BIE in the reorganization effort on the tribes and since the tribes have not been particularly enthusiastic about the notion of their bureaus being part of the reorganization, we in fact have not included them. 45:20 Scott Cameron : Essentially, the reorganization has three parts, the unified region, a concept which has already initially deployed, if you will. There's a notion of saving money to invest in Indian schools and other departmental services by pursuing shared services and our back office administrative functions to get some efficiencies there. And the third prong is the notion of moving the headquarters elements of the BLM and the USGS West, to be closer to where the preponderance of those bureaus activities is taking place. 50:15 Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ): I was thinking if there was an instruction manual on how to fundamentally weaken an agency. This is what I think I would recommend. Start by creating a crisis for key agencies. Move them as far away from Congress as possible to minimize contact with appropriators and authorizers. Undermine those relationships, separate them from the nonprofit community that helps them make informed decisions. Then make it clear to the workforce that they are not valued. Create a culture of fear to demand total loyalty. Transfer them to jobs in which they have no qualifications or interest. Send them to new parts of the country. Uproot their families and lives. Quietly close or cut programs throughout the agency. Take away their decision making authority and voice within the department and put it in the hands of political appointees. 51:40 Jamie Rappaport-Clark:It is incredibly destabilized. Focus is not on the task at hand. Employees are confused. Stakeholders are confused. Communication is not flowing and there's a culture of fear in the Interior department, clearly in the fish and wildlife service given the reckless nature of senior executive reassignments with no justification, with no information, with no conversation. Another round is expected to be coming. This is an agency I believe in crisis, which diverts its talent. It diverts its responsibilities. It diverts its attention to addressing species extinction, land management needs, climate change, all of the water management, all of the very important natural resource values that that department's trusted to oversee and take care of. 58:40 Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): Mr. Cameron, Let me also ask you, you talked about benefits of, in your written testimony of relocating and DOI from Washington D.C., can you just simply explain some of the longterm savings that a relocation would actually realize? Scott Cameron: Yes, Mr. Bishop, so there are a number of types of savings. For one thing, the rental cost in most cities in the West is a lot cheaper than in the main interior building or in Washington D.C. more generally. Travel costs, travel time. Most of the airplane trips are from the east coast to the west coast. If we had the geological survey headquarters and the BLM headquarters out west somewhere, there be a lot more one hour plane trips instead of four hour plane trips. Cost of living for our employees is a lot cheaper out west in most locations, than it would be here and there is a list of a dozen or so variables that we're looking at. 1:04:00 Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ): And what are the steps of accountability? Scott Cameron: We will be working on individual performance standards for the person who is charged with being an Interior Regional Director, each one of the regions. And there will be specific expectations in terms of what that person's scope is or is not on a region by region basis. And they would be reporting to the deputy secretary in Washington. So we will have an accountability, but we will be not cutting out the bureau directors and the assistant secretaries, but traditional chains of command will also apply. 1:06:40 Rep. T.J. Cox (CA): Can you provide any type of legal justification whatsoever withholding the plan? Scott Cameron: Sir, For once, I'm glad I'm not an attorney, so I won't dare to go outside of my area of expertise. So I cannot provide that. 1:07:00 Rep. T.J. Cox (CA): Any evidence at all that this reorganization strategy or plan is going to strengthen agency decision-making? Michael Bromwich: Well if there is, we haven't seen it. And it's up to the agency to provide it. I looked at the reorganization website that DOI sponsors, there's been nothing posted on it since November one. One of the key elements of a reorganization if it's going to succeed, is to continue to push information out to all of the stakeholders who are affected by it. Most particularly, the employees in the agencies that are going to be affected. And you can read through everything that's on the DOI reorganization website in less than half an hour. And as I say, it hasn't been updated in five months since November one. So you can't handle a reorganization that is a mystery shrouded in another mystery. You need to be open about it. You need to provide the details of what you're doing. You need to lay out the costs and benefits that will be accomplished through the reorganization. None of that has been done. Mr. Cameron has done a very good job of talking in generalities, but there are only generalities and without having the kind of analysis that undergirds a real and potentially successful reorganization, it's simply not going to work. If the reorganization that has been described by Mr. Cameron and has previously been described by Secretary Zinke were submitted to a board of directors of any major company in this country, it would be rejected flatly, for lack of detail. 1:21:40 Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): What does SES mean? Scott Cameron: Um, Senior Executive Service. Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): And did you not have one of the SES, a two day conference with those people on this plan? Scott Cameron: We did Sir, more than a year ago. We brought in all the regional.... Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): Did it have the recommendations? Scott Cameron: We spent two days chatting with them. They gave us lots of ideas and we modified our original conception of the plan based on their feedback. Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): So you have implemented those types of things? Scott Cameron: Yes Sir, we're in the process of implementing them. Rep. Rob Bishop (UT): And as you go and talk to interest groups, whatever they be, you have implemented those changes? The changes from the county lines to state lines. Was that pushed by the states? Scott Cameron: It was pushed by the Western Governors Association in particular. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD202: Impeachment?

6 oktober 2019 | 73 min

Donald Trump. Ukraine. Joe Biden. A phone call. Election Interference. Impeachment! What the hell is going on? In this episode, an irritated Jen gives you the backstory that you need to know about the impeachment drama, including what the steps to impeachment are. Prepare yourself: Everyone devoted to the Republican or Democratic parties will be pissed off by this episode. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Combating Russia NDAA The World Trade Organization: COOL? What do We Want in Ukraine Ukraine Aid Bill A Coup for Capitalism Target Venezuela Regime Change in Progress Articles/Documents Article: by Niv Elis, The Hill, October 3, 2019 Article: by Alex Ward, Vox, October 3, 2019 Article: by Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept, October 2, 2019 Article: by Matthew Yglesias, Vox, October 1, 2019 Article: by Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, The New York Times, October 1, 2019 Article: By Karen DeYoung, Josh Dawsey, Karoun Demirjian and John Hudson, The Washington Post, October 1, 2019 Article: by Seung Min Kim, The Washington Post, September 30, 2019 Article: by Robert Burns, Lolita Baldor, and Andrew Taylor, The Associated Press, MilitaryTimes, September 30, 2019 Article: by Jim Geraghty, National Review, September 30, 2019 Article: by Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish and Matt Viser, The Washington Post, September 28, 2019 Article: by Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish and Matt Viser, The Washington Post, September 28, 2019 Article: by Tom LoBianco, The New York Times, September 27, 2019 Article: by Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner, The New York Times, September 26, 2019 Article: by Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept, September 26, 2019 Document: , September 26, 2019, Pg 144 Article: by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: by Ephrat Livni, Quartz, September 25, 2019 Article: by Charlie Savage, The New York Times, September 24, 2019 Article: By Karoun Demirjian, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Carol D. Leonnig, The Washington Post, September 23, 2019 Article: by Joe Gould, Defense News, September 19, 2019 Article: by Aaron Mehta, Defense News, September 12, 2019 Document: , September 12, 2019, Pg 305 Document: , September 12, 2019, Pg 148 Letter: August 12, 2019 Article: by Adam Entous, The New Yorker, July 1, 2019 Article: by Molly E. Reynolds, Margaret Taylor, Lawfare, May 21, 2019 Article: by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, May 7, 2019 Article: by Stephanie Baker and Daryna Krasnolutska, Bloomberg, May 7, 2019 Article: by Debbie Lord, Cox Media Group National Content Desk, AJC, April 22, 2019 Article: by Rachael Bade and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, April 8, 2019 Article: by John Solomon, The Hill, April 1, 2019 Article: The Hill, March 20, 2019 Article: The Hill, March 20, 2019 Document: , February 13, 2019 Article: by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 16, 2017 Article: by James Risen, The New York Times, December 8, 2015 Additional Resources Document: Document: , Pg 100 Prepared Remarks: , Atlantic Council, December 19, 2013 Sound Clip Sources , CNBC, September 30, 2019 Speakers: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Transcript: Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY): Yeah, it's a, it's a Senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change. So I would have no choice but to take it up. How long you're on it is a whole different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up. , C-SPAN, 74th U.N. General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York City, September 25, 2019 Speakers: Donald J. Trump President Zelensky Transcript: 1:45 Volodymyr Zelensky: It’s a great pleasure to me to be here, and it’s better to be on TV than by phone. 3:30 Volodymyr Zelensky: My priority to stop the war on Donbass and to get back our territories, –- thank you for your support in this case, thank you very much. 6:40 Volodymyr Zelensky: And to know when, I want world to know that now we have the new team, the new parliament, the new government. So now we – about 74 laws, new laws, which help for our new reforms, land reform, -- law about concessions, that we – general – and we launched the – secretary, and anti-corruption court. As we came, we launched the anti-corruption court, it began to work on the 5th of September. It was, you know, it was, after five days we had the new – So we are ready, we want to show that we just come, and if somebody, if you, you want to help us, so just let’s do business cases. We have many investment cases, we’re ready. 12:00 Reporter: Do you believe that the emaiIs from Hillary Clinton, do you believe that they are in Ukraine? Do you think this whole -- President Trump: I think they could be. You mean the 30,000 that she deleted? Reporter: Yes. President Trump: Yeah, I think they could very well, boy that was a nice question. I like, that's why, because frankly, I think that one of the great crimes committed is Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after Congress sends her a subpoena. Think of that. You can't even do that in a civil case. You can't get rid of evidence like that. She deleted 33,000 emails after, not before, after receiving the subpoena from the U.S. Congress. 16:00 Translator for Volodymyr Zelensky: During the investigation, actually, I want to underscore that Ukraine is an independent country. We have a new –- in Ukraine, a hired, professional man with a western education and history, to investigate any case he considers and deems -- , C-SPAN, September 24, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi 0:40 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA): Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break of a phone call by the President of the United States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election. 4:30 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA): And this week, the President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The action of the Trump, the actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law. , CNN, August 8, 2019 Speakers: Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Transcript: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): This is formal impeachment proceedings. We are investigating all the evidence, we are gathering the evidence, and we will at the conclusion of this, hopefully by the end of the year, vote to, vote articles of impeachment to the House floor, or we won't. That's a decision that we'll have to make, but that, but that's exactly the process we're in right now. Council of Foreign Relations: , Tuesday, January 23, 2018 Speakers: Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Michael R. Carpenter Presider, Richard N. Haass Transcript: 6:00* Joe Biden: I think there's a basic decision that they cannot compete against a unified West. And I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post world war two liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think is viewed as they're in their immediate self-interest. 52:00 Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team and our leaders, that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. 54:00 Joe Biden: But always worked in Kiev because, as I said, look, it's simple proposition. If in fact you do not continue to show progress in terms of corruption, we are not going to be able to hold the rest of Europe on these sanctions and Russia is not going to roll across the inner line here and take over the rest of the country with their tanks. What they're going to do is they're going to take your economy down. You're going to be absolutely buried and you're going to be done, and that's when it all goes to hell. 56:00 Joe Biden: It's a very difficult spot to be in now, when foreign leaders call me, and they do, because I never, ever, ever would say anything negative to a foreign leader, and I mean this sincerely, about a sitting president, no matter how fundamentally I disagree with them. And it is not my role, not my role to make foreign policy. But the questions across the board range from, what the hell is going on, Joe, to what advice do you have for me? And my advice always is to, I give them names of individuals in the administration who I think to be knowledgeable and, and, and, and, and committed, and I say, you should talk to so and so. You should, and what I do, and every one of those times, I first call the vice president and tell him I received the call, tell him, and ask him whether he has any objection to my returning the call. And then what is the administration's position, if any, they want me to communicate to that country. , ABC News, March 30, 2015 Speakers: Mike Pence George Stephanopoulos 8:00 George Stephanopoulos: One fix that people have talked about is simply adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state civil rights laws. Will you push for that? Mike Pence: I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda. And that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana. , BBC News, February 7, 2014 Speakers: Victoria Nuland Geoffrey Pyatt Victoria Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay. Victoria Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. , C-SPAN, Atlantic Council of the U.S., December 13, 2013 Speakers: John S. McCain III Transcript: 16:45 Sen. John McCain: Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensible for Ukraine's future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine's economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD201: WTF is the Federal Reserve?

23 september 2019 | 114 min

The Federal Reserve system: Most Americans know it's important but most Americans don't know exactly what it is. In this episode, discover the controversial and disturbing history of the Federal Reserve and learn how it has allowed bankers and politicians to create money out of nothing, taking value out of your bank accounts for over 100 years. Executive Producers: Anonymous, Brandon K. Lewis Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes : The Democracies of Elliott Abrams : The Bank Lobbyist Act : Combatting Russia (NDAA 2018) : The World Trade Organization CD Team Members Only (): Books by G. Edward Griffin September 2010 by Danielle DiMartino February 2017 by Nomi Prins 2018 by David Dayen May 2016 Articles/Documents Article: by Nancy Tengler, USA Today, September 19, 2019. Article: by Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg Opinion, September 19, 2019. Article: by Scott Horsley, NPR, September 18, 2019. Article: by By Craig Torres and Rich Miller, Bloomberg, September 18, 2019. Article: by Liz McCormick and Alex Harris, Bloomberg, September 17, 2019. Article: by Drew Disilver, Pew Reserach Center, July 24, 2019. Article: by Charlie Savage, The Washington Post, June 20, 2019. Article: by Adele Peters, Fast Company, February 12, 2019. Article: The Intercept, by David Dayen, February 8, 2019. Article: by Kathleen Pender, San Francisco Chronicle, January 26, 2019. Article: by Rebecca Burns and David Dayen, The Intercept, January 1, 2019. Article: by Andrew Van Dam, Washington Post, November 29, 2018. Info booklet: By David H. Friedman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, December 27, 2018 Press Release: , Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve Board, October 31, 2018. Article: by Richard Florida, CityLab, July 27, 2018. Article: by Rob Wile, CNN Money, December 19, 2017. Article: by Binyamin Appelbaum and Kevin Granville, New York Times, Nov. 2, 2017. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, April 19, 2017. Article: by William R. Emmons, St. Louis Federal Reserve, December 2, 2016 Article: by Tim McMahon, InflationData.com, March 21, 2013. Article: , Reuters and Bloomberg News, July 26, 2006. Article: , New York Times, February 17, 1995. Article: by Henry Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993. Article: , New York Times, December 13, 1913 Article: , New York Times, June 17, 1913 Resources Congressional Budget Office: Council on Foriegn Relations: Council on Foreign Relations: Council on Foreign Relations: Council on Foreign Relations: Federal Reserve: Federal Reserve Board of Governors: Federal Reserve FAQ: Federal Reserve History: Federal Reserve History: Investopedia: Treasury Direct: Treasury Direct: Treasury Direct: U.S. Global Investors: Sound Clip Sources June 19, 2019 Reporter: Clarify what you would do if the president tweets or calls you to say he would like to demote you as fed chair? Jerome Powell: I think the law is clear that I have a four year term and I I fully intend to serve it. March 6, 2019 October 16, 2019 President Donald Trump: Give me zero interest rates right now and you take a look at our numbers. It'd be the greatest economy in the history of the world. Nobody would be able to compete with it. President Donald Trump: And I fully get the whole thing, the Federal Reserve, I get it as well as any president who's ever been here. I get it really well. January 23, 2018 Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team and our leaders, convincing them that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. November 2015 Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the Special Operations Force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more, as more Syrians get into the fight. We should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition Forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas for them from the country instead of fleeing toward Europe. September 18, 2009 Ron Paul: But, there's a moral argument, against the, the Federal Reserve because, we're giving power to a few individuals to create money out of thin air and have, have legal tender laws that says, you must use the paper money. You can't use gold as the constitution tells you you should, but you must use, paper money. And then that gives the central bank the Authority to counterfeit money, and always for good reasons, of course, to maintain a stable economy. Ron Paul: The mandate and the Federal Reserve Act for the Federal Reserve was to maintain the value of the dollar and to have full employment, and maintaining the value of the dollar means stable prices. Well, they fail. They flown, they get an AF. They're destroying the value of the dollar. And we have perpetual increases in cost of living and they say, oh no, it's not all bad inflation. We're only destroying the money at 2% per year. But it's a lot worse than that. But 2% it's evil too. You know, under sun money, your value of your money goes up, costs go down, cost of living goes down and you get more. And that's how we become more prosperous. But they have totally failed in maintaining the value of the dollar, giving us stable prices. Nobody wants to talk about the inflation in Eh, in a medical care. Yes, pricing. People are unhappy because they can't afford it or they can't afford it because their dollar doesn't buy as much. You say, oh no, we don't have inflation. The government says the CPIS only going up 1% - 2%. But the cost of medicine goes up much more rampantly. But, when you create new money, the cost goes up differently for different areas. If everybody's wages went up at the same rate as the money supply would go up, and everybody's cost would go up the same, it would be irrelevant. But it doesn't work that way. Your wages and your income never keep up and certain prices go up faster than others. Some people suffer more than people who get to use the money. First benefit. The people who get the money, use the money last, the average person in the middle class, they use the money and they get stuck. If you're in retirement, you might suffer more than others. But you know, they come up with these figures and they say, oh, prices went up 2% last month. But if you exclude for food and energy, they only went up a half a percent. So it wasn't so bad. But for some people, food and energy crisis go up and it means a whole lot. Ron Paul: And there was a time, you know, the Federal Reserve was required to have gold behind the expansion of money. So they were restrained and as bad as they were in inviting problems, they still had some restraint up until 1971. But even though the Federal Reserve Act gave the power to the Fed to buy corporate debt, they really never did that until just recently. It used to be gold and silver that they used as reserve. And then after 1971, they just used treasury bills, which was bad, but still there was some restraint on that, that depended on the amount of debt that we had. But of course, that gave license to the congress to run up unlimited amount of debt. But today what backs our dollar is derivatives. All the worthless access, the toxic access assets that we were required to buy are now held by the Fed. And we don't know exactly how much and what they have bought. And that, of course, is why we're arguing for the case of auditing the Fed. Ron Paul: The other associations that I talk about in the book are the associations with the Federal Reserve Board chairman. I've had a few of those. And a matter of fact, just for a month or so, when I first went into Congress, Berns was still the chairman. I didn't really get to know him and it was such a short period and he was in poor health. But the one that I got to know the best in our years was Paul Volcker. And, I gave him a little bit of a plus as far as the various members, various chairman that I've met because, he seemed to be more willing to discuss things on a one to one basis. Actually there was one time when we were working on the monetary control act in the early 1980s, which gave a lot more power, regulatory powers, to the Federal Reserve and to monetize debt. And I was arguing one case in the committee, that it was a dangerous thing because the Federal Reserve was given too much power to inflate endlessly and didn't have to have any reserves whatsoever and could take interest rates down to zero or whatever. And, he was disagreeing with me and he says, look, what I'd like you to do is come over and have breakfast with me. And, that wouldn't happen with Bernanke or Greenspan. They didn't do that. So I did. I went over to the Federal Reserve and we had the discussion. He tried to, you know, convince me differently, but I felt like I won the argument with them because as I was leaving, he says, yes, you may be right about this, but he himself, that I may be right on the interpretation of the legislation, but he himself would not inflate. He wants this so that he has the power to restrain monetary authorities rather than to expand monetary powers. But it turns out that yes, I said, you might not want to use these powers to rapidly expand the money supply, but someday somebody else might want to do it. And of course, I make the comment, I think that some day is right here when you see what Bernanke did, you know, within a few months, doubling the monetary base. So, his authority was getting granted back at that time. Ron Paul: He wants to know what a sound currency would look like. I think you could probably go to the period of time in the 19th century when they had sound money and gold coins circulated and certificates should circulate and could circulate. It's the trust factor that would have to be there and you could still have electronic money and whatever. People could measure the value of the currency by something that should always be convertible. You should have a gold coin standard, and that is that you don't have to carry the coins around, but if the government is guaranteeing - which they are supposed to be doing - guaranteeing that any certificate would be convertible into coin, and that's better than a --- standard, that means that if you have $5,000 and you're getting worried about the government, you get to vote against the government saying, look, I want my gold coins in my pocket. And then they then would have to give you the gold coins. Ron Paul: It's a sinister tax is what it really is. Governments: There's enough of a coalition together that wants to see government grow. Whether it's for the welfare reasons here at home, or if it's for the ideas of promoting our goodness around the world. It has nothing to do with protecting oil or anything else, but we need a military presence around the world. But if you had honest money and governments couldn't counterfeit, these ideas would still float around, but they would be forced to pay for it immediately. If we could ever get this whole notion that you shouldn't even allow the government to borrow, and they would have to tax us directly and say, look, if you want to do A, B, and C, we're going to take money from you and we're going to pay for it. This would slow things up. But there's a convenience for those who want big government to have the tax be an inflation tax. That is to vote for all the welfare programs. Vote for all the warfare programs. Don't be a responsible for this, morally responsible or economically responsible. Just pass the programs. And if you find your coalitions, you get reelected. And this is work to, you know, running as Santa Claus is a lot better than running against Santa Claus. And that's been done for many, many years. But that's coming to an end. That's why there's a difference right now because this system is in the process of failing. March 3, 2009 Senate Budget Committee Witness Ben Bernanke - Chairman of the Federal Reserve 58:00 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): I wrote you a letter and I said, hey, who'd you lend the money to? What were the terms of those loans? How can my constituents in Vermont get some of that money? Who makes the decisions? Do you guys sit around in a room? Do you make it? Are there conflicts of interest? So my question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars? Will you tell us who got that money and what the terms are of those agreements? Ben Bernanke: We explain each of our programs. In terms of the terms, we explained the terms exactly. We explained what the collateral requirements are. We explained… Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): To whom did you explain that? Ben Bernanke: It's on our website. Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Yeah. Okay. Ben Bernanke: So all that information is available in our commercial paper... Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): And who got the money? Ben Bernanke: Hundreds and hundreds of banks. Any bank or that has access to the U.S. Federal Reserve's discount... Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Can you tell us who they are? Ben Bernanke: No, because the reason that is counterproductive and will destroy the value of the program is that banks will not come to the… Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Isn't that too bad? Ben Bernanke: Sorry. Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): In other words, isn't that too bad? They took the money, but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations ______________________________________________________ Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD200: How to End Legal Bribes

14 juli 2019 | 168 min

The currently legal ability of obscenely rich people to bribe lawmakers and law enforcers is the source of many - if not all - of our political problems. In this episode, get an update on the few democracy-enhancing bills that have moved in this Congress and Jen speaks to Sam Fieldman - the National Counsel at Wolf-PAC - who explains how we can constitutionally end the role of money in politics by going around Congress. Joe Briney joins Jen for the thank you's. Executive Producer: Randall Dibble Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! ______________________________________________________ Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Recommended Reading Article: by John Sarbanes and Brian Frosh, Baltimore Sun, July 3, 2019 Article: by Donald Shaw, ReadSludge.com, June 10, 2019. Article: by Whitney Webb, MPN News, May 24, 2019. Document: SSRN, May 21, 2019 Article: by Mark Niese, GovTech, May 2, 2019. Article: by Sean Gallagher, ARS Technica, April 10, 2019. Article: by Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse, Governing, April 5, 2019. Article: by Mark Niesse, Atlanta Journal, January 30, 2019 Article: by Ella Nilsen, Vox, January 04, 2019. Article: , by Thom Hartmann, Salon.com, November 23, 2018. Article: U.S. News, November 7, 2018. Article: by Lily Hay Newman, Wired, September 28, 2018. Article: by Kim Zetter, Vice News, July 17, 2018. Article: , by DD Guttenplan, The Nation, June 27, 2018. Article: by Greg Gordon, Amy Renee Leiker, Jamie Self and Stanley Dunlap, McClatchy DC Bureau, June 21, 2018. Document: Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records, 2018 Data: OpenSecrets.org, 2018. Article: by Sam Fieldman, Medium.com, October 12, 2017. Article: by Pam Fessler, NPR, October 26, 2016. Document: Redistricting Majority Project, January 4, 2013. Document: Committee on Ethics, January 4, 2013. Document: Every CRSRReport.com, June 17, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Bill Outline : SAFE Act Sponsor: Zoe Lofgren of northern California 74 pages Passed the House on June 27, 2019 Only GOP yes: Newbie Rep. Brian Mast - 38 year old wounded Afghanistan war veteran representing the Palm Beach area Went to the Committee on Rules and Administration in the Senate : Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Subtitle A: Voting System Security Improvement Grants : Paper ballot requirements “The voting system shall require the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voters’ vote that shall be marked and made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and counted, which shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device." “The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error on the paper ballot…” Recounts: The paper ballot “shall constitute the official ballot and shall be preserved and used as the official ballot for purposes any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.” : Durability and readability requirements for ballots Ballots must be on “durable” paper, which means it is capable of withstanding multiple recounts by hand without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots” and they must maintain readability for 22 months. : Recycled Paper Ballots must be printed on recycled paper starting on January 1, 2021. : These rules will apply “for any election for Federal office held in 2020 or any succeeding year.” Grandfathered equipment: Districts using machines that print paper ballots with the votes already tallied can use those machines until 2022, but they must offer every voter the opportunity to vote using a blank paper ballot, which are not allowed to be designated as provisional. :Grants for equipment changes Federal tax money will be given to states to replace their voting system, if needed. Grant amount: At least $1 per the average number of people who voted in the last two elections To use these grants, the states can only buy voting equipment from a vendor “owned and controlled by a citizen or permanent resident of the United States” The vendor must tell government officials if they get any part of their election infrastructure parts from outside the United States Authorizes (but doesn’t appropriate) $600 million for 2019 and $175 million for each even number election year through 2026 :Risk-Limiting Audits : Risk-limited audits required for all elections for Federal office State election officials will make the rules for how these will be done : Federal government will pay for audits Authorizes “such sums as are necessary” : Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration : Voting system cybersecurity requirements Vote counting machine rules Machines that count ballots must be built so that "it’s mechanically impossible for the device to add or change the vote selections on a printed or market ballot” The device must be “capable of exporting its data (including vote tally data sets and cast vote records) in a machine-readable, open data standards format” The device’s software’s source code, system build tools, and compilation parameters must be given to certain Federal and State regulators and “may be shared by any entity to whom it has been provided… with independent experts for cybersecurity analysis.” The devise must have technology that allows “election officials, cybersecurity researchers, and voters to verify that the software running on the device was built from a specific, untampered version of the code” that was provided to Federal and State regulators. Loophole for moles: The Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security can waive any of the requirements other than the first one that prohibits machines that can change votes. The waivers can be applied to a device for no more than two years. The waivers must be publicly available on the Internet. Not effective until November 2024 election. Ballot marking machines and vote counters can’t use or “be accessible by any wireless, power-line, or concealed communication device” or “connected to the Internet or any non-local computer system via telephone or other communication network at any time.” Effective for the 2020 general election and all elections after Ballot marking devices can’t be capable of counting votes States may submit applications to Federal regulators for testing and certification the accuracy of ballot marking machines, but they don’t have to. : Testing of existing voting systems 9 months before each regularly scheduled general election for Federal offices, “accredited laboratories” will test the voting system hardware and software with was certified for use in the most recent election. If the hardware and software fails the test, it “shall” be decertified. Effective for the 2020 General Election. : Requiring use of software and hardware for which information is disclosed by manufacturer “In the operation of voting systems in an election for Federal office, a State may only use software for which the manufacturer makes the source code… publicly available online under a license that grants a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sub-licensable license to all intellectual property rights in such source code…." …except that the manufacturer may prohibit people from using the software for commercial advantage or “private monetary compensation” that is unrelated to doing legitimate research. States “may not use a voting system in an election for Federal office unless the manufacture of the system publicly discloses online the identification of the hardware used to operate the system” If the voting system is not widely-used, the manufacture must make the design “publicly available online under a license that grants a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sub-licensable license to all intellectual property rights…” Effective for the 2020 General election : Poll books will be counted as part of voting systems for these regulations Effective January 1, 2020 : Use of voting machines manufactured in the United States : Voting machines must be manufactured in the United States : White House Ethics Transparency Act of 2019 Reported June 12, 2019 out of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform 23-16 On January 28, 2017 - a week after taking office - President Trump issued that requires all executive agency appointees to sign and be contractually obligated to a pledge that… The appointee won’t lobby his/her former agency for 5 years after leaving Will not lobby the administration he/she previously worked for Will not, after leaving government, “engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938” Will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists Will recuse themselves from any matter involving their former employers for two years from the date of their appointment If the appointee was a lobbyist before entering government, that person will not work on any matter that they had lobbied for for 2 years after the appointment BUT Section 3 allows waivers: “The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person.” : Requires any executive branch official who gets a waiver to submit a written copy to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and make a written copy of the waiver available to the public on the website of the agency where the appointee works. Backdated to January 20, 2017 (President Trump’s inauguration) : Executive Branch Comprehensive Ethics Enforcement Act of 2019 Reported March 26, 2019 out of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 18-12 : Creates a transition ethics program Requires the President-elect to give Congress a list of everyone in consideration for security clearance within 10 days of the applications submission and a list of everyone granted security clearance within 10 days of their approval. Requires the transition team to create and enforce an “ethics plan” that needs to describe the role of registered lobbyists on the transition team, the role of people registered as foreign agents, and which transition team members of sources of income which are not known by the public Transition team members must be prohibited by the ethics plan from working on matters where they have “personal financial conflicts of interest” during the transition and explain how they plan to address those conflicts of interest during the incoming administration. The transition team ethics plan must be publicly avail on the website of the General Services Administration Transition team members need to submit a list of all positions they have held outside the Federal Government for the previous 12 months -including paid and unpaid positions-, all sources of compensation that exceed $5,000 in the previous 12 months, and a list of policy issues worked on in their previous roles, a list of issues the team member will be recused from as part of the administration. Transition team members that do not comply will not be granted any access to the Federal department or agency that isn’t open to the public. : Creates a transition ethics program: Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act Reported 4/10/19 out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On Senate Calendar : Definitions “Congressionally mandated report” means a report that is required to be submitted to Congress by a bill, resolution, or conference report that becomes law. Does NOT include reports required from 92 nonprofit corporations labeled as “Patriotic and National Organizations” (“Title 36 corporations”) : Website for reports 1 year after enactment, there needs to be a website “that allows the public to obtain electronic copies of all congressionally mandated reports in one place” If a Federal agency fails to submit a report, the website will tell us the information that is required by law and the date when the report was supposed to be submitted The government can’t charge a fee for access to the reports The reports can be redacted by the Federal agencies Resources Twitter Link: Twitter. Employment Profile: OpenSecrets.org Employment Profile: OpenSecrets.org Email Link: PDF Email: Volunteer Link: Resource Link: Documentary: Congressional Dish Interview: Preet Bharara Podcast: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: YouTube Video: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Reference Website: Govtrack: Document: Document: Document: Document: Document: Sound Clip Sources 1:57:55 Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): For the last two years, Senator Lankford and I, on a bipartisan bill with support from the ranking and the head of the intelligence committee; have been trying to get the Secure Elections Act passed. This would require backup paper ballots. If anyone gets federal funding for an election, it would require audits, um, and it would require better cooperation. Yet the White House, just as we were on the verge of getting a markup in the rules committee (getting it to the floor where I think we would get the vast majority of senators), the White House made calls to stop this. Were you aware of that? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): Okay, well that happened. So what I would like to know from you as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer if you will work with Senator Lankford and I to get this bill done? Because otherwise we are not going to have any clout to get backup paper ballots if something goes wrong in this election. Attorney General William Barr: Well, I will… I will work with you, uh, to, uh, enhance the security of our election and I’ll take a look at what you’re proposing. I’m not familiar with it. Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): Okay. Well, it is the bipartisan bill. It has Senator Burr and Senator Warner. It’s support from Senator Graham was on the bill. Senator Harris is on the bill and the leads are Senator Lankford and myself, and it had significant support in the house as well. Hearing: , February 6, 2019 *28:00 Rep Jordan (OH): 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. Hearing: , January 29, 2019 Witness: Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. ______________________________________________________ Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations ______________________________________________________ Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD199: Surprise Medical Bills

30 juni 2019 | 158 min

Almost 40% of Americans WITH health insurance reported they had received a surprise medical bill in the past year from a doctor or hospital for a service they thought was covered by their insurance plan. Why is this happening? And what can we do about it? Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Article: by Tami Luhby, CNN, June 20, 2019. Press Release: by Representative Katie Porter, Porter House News, June 13, 2019. Article: , by Tammy Luhby, CNN, May 23, 2019. Bill: by Senator Bill Cassidy, Govtrack.us, May 16, 2019. Press Release: , by Trauma Association of America, May 16, 2019. Article: by Tami Luhby, CNN, May 9, 2019. Article: by Alex Wittenberg, Biz Journals, May 7, 2019. Article: by Sarah Kliff, Vox, April 24, 2019. Article: by Sarah Kliff, Vox, April 1, 2019 Bill: 116th Congress, March 1, 2019. Bill: 116th Congress, January 30, 2019. Article: by Sarah Kliff, Vox, January 24, 2019. Article: by Sarah Kliff, Vox, January 24, 2019. Document: by Zach Cooper, Fiona Scott Morton and Nathan Shekita, NBER, January 2019 Article: by Ayla Ellison, Becker Hospital Review, November 16, 2018. Article: by Sarah Kliff, Vox, October 29, 2018. Article: by Randy Schultz, Sun Sentinel News, October 2, 2018. Article: by Susan Morse, Healthcare Finance News, September 25, 2018. Article: by Matthew Albright, The Self-Insurer, September 2018. Article: by Reed Abelson, NY Times, August 31, 2018. Article: by Lindsey Copeland, Medicare Rights Center, August 9, 2018. Article: by Jenny Gold, Kaiser Health News and Sarah Kliff, Vox, July 20, 2018. Article: by John Tozzi, Bloomberg News, June, 11 2018. Case Docket: Federal Trade Commission, May 3, 2018. Article: by Berta Bustamante, InsideArm, April 10, 2018. Press Release: Federal Trade Commission, March 7, 2018. Document: US Senate, September 20, 2017 Bill: by Ann Whitehead,JD,RN.,CAP Physicians, August 30, 2017. Report: Government Accountability Office, July 2017. Article: by Julie Creswell,Reed Abelson and Margot Sangor-Katz, NY Times, July 24, 2017. Article: by Staff, Word&Brown, July 14, 2017. Report: Consumer Reports, March 2017. Article: by Christopher Garmon and Benjamin Chartock, Health Affairs, January 2017. Article: by Alexander Zayas and Kris Hunley, Tampa Bay Times, November 21, 2014. Article: Becker's Hospital Review, April 16, 2014. Article: Becker's Hospital Review, April 10, 2014. Resources Profile Link: Linkedin. Profile Link: Linkedin. Contact Us: End of the Insurance Gap.org About Us: IBX.com Document: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013-2018 Contributor List: Opensecrets.org Campaign Money Data Table: Campaign Money.com Online Review Score: BestCompany.com False Claims Act: , WhistleBlowerJustice.net Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Not on C-Span, Committee on Energy and Commerce, June 12, 2019. Witnesses: Sonji Wilkes: Patient Advocate Sherif Zaafran, MD: Chair of Physicians for Fair Coverage Rick Sherlock: President and CEO of Association of Air Medical Services James Gelfand: Senior Vice President of Health Policy at The ERISA Industry Committee Thomas Nickels: Executive Vice President of the American Hospital Association Jeanette Thornton: Senior Vice President of Product, Employer, and Commercial Policy at Americas’ Health Insurance Plans Claire McAndrew: Director of Campaigns and Partnerships at Families USA Vidor E. Friedman, MD: President of American College of Emergency Physicians Transcript 47:54 CEO Rick Sherlock: Emergency air medical services are highly effective medical interventions appropriate in cases where getting a patient directly to the closest most appropriate medical facility can make a significant difference in their survival in recovery. Today, because of air medical services, 90% of Americans can reach a level one or level two trauma center within an hour. However, since 2010, 90 hospitals have closed in rural areas and an estimated 20% more are at risk of closing. Our members fill the gap created by closures, but this lifeline is fraying as 31 air medical bases have also closed in 2019. 48:31 CEO Rick Sherlock: Emergency or medical providers never make the decision on who to transport. That decision is always made by a requesting physician or medically trained first responder. Air medical crews then respond within minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week without any knowledge of a patient’s ability to pay for their services. 48:45 CEO Rick Sherlock: Our members are unique in the healthcare system. The services heavily regulated by the states for the purposes of healthcare, as ambulances and the federal government for aviation safety and services as air carriers. It is their status as air carriers that allow rapid transport of patients over significant distances. Over 33% of our flights cross state lines every day. For that reason, the Airline Deregulation act uniform authority over the national airspace is essential to the provision of this lifesaving service. Exempting air medical services from the ADA would allow states to regulate aviation services, including where and when they’re able to fly, limiting access to healthcare for patients in crisis. 49:54 CEO Rick Sherlock: To prevent balance billing, our members are actively negotiating with insurance companies to secure in-network agreements. One member alone has increased their participation from 5% to almost 43% in the last three years. Despite that, some insurers have refused to discuss in-network agreements. That hurts both patients and caregivers. 50:30 CEO Rick Sherlock: Uh, covering air medical services in full, represents about a $1.70 of the average monthly premium. 51:50 CEO Rick Sherlock: $10,199 was the median cost of providing a helicopter transport. While Medicare paid $5,998, Medicaid paid $3,463 and the uninsured paid $354. This results in an ongoing imbalance between actual costs and government reimbursement and is the single biggest factor in increasing costs. 53:45 Senior VP James Gelfand: We’re focused on three scenarios in which patients end up with big bills they couldn’t see coming or avoid. Number one, a patient receives care at an in-network facility, but is treated by an out of network provider. Number two, a patient requires emergency care, but the provider’s facility or transportation are out of network. And number three, a patient is transferred or handed off without sufficient information or alternatives. It’s usually not the providers you’re planning to see. It’s anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, or emergency providers or transport or an unexpected trip to the NICU. Many work for outsourced medical staffing firms that have adopted a scam strategy of staying out of networks, practicing at in-network facilities and surprise billing patients. It’s deeply concerning, but the problem is narrowly defined and therefore we can fix it. 54:40 Senior VP James Gelfand: The No Surprises Act nails it. It takes patients out of the middle and creates a market based benchmark rate to pay providers fairly. The benchmark is not developed by government and it is not price setting. The committee might also consider network matching. It’s simple. If a provider practices at an in-network facility, they take the in-network rate or they go work somewhere else. Or base the benchmark on Medicare, you could set the rate higher, say 125% of Medicare and still make the system more affordable, sustainable and simpler. These approaches will eliminate the surprise bills. That’s a huge win for patients. 54:50 ** Senior VP James Gelfand: But not everyone wants to stop the surprise bills. Some provider specialties are saying, “let us keep doing what we’re doing, just use binding arbitration to make someone else pay these bills”. They’re asking for a non- transparent process that could force plans and employers to pay massive and fake medical list prices. It’s essentially setting money on fire. Funds that would have been used to pay for healthcare will instead be spent on administrative costs such as lawyers, arbitrators, facility fees, and on reasonable settlement amounts. Make no mistake, patients will pay these costs. 55:20 Senior VP James Gelfand: The ground and air ambulance companies are asking Congress to let them keep surprise billing too. Do nothing, wait for another study, another report, and there have already been four. They know patients cannot shop for them and many participate in no networks. State insurance commissioners are begging for help with air ambulances, but Congress has tied their hands. Employers think Congress should end this. Treat medical transport the same as emergency care. We should end surprise billing in the ER and on the way there. 56:30 Senior VP James Gelfand: Other providers figure they’re willing to stop surprise billing, but only if they can increase in-network rates. They’re calling for network adequacy rules to force insurers and employers to add more providers to their networks, even if those providers demand astronomical payments. Does anyone here actually believe that these hospital based doctors who services cannot be shopped for, who are guaranteed to see our patients, are begging to be included in our networks, but nobody will return their calls? That they have no choice but to go and join these out of network Wall Street owned firms? It doesn’t make sense. 57:00 Senior VP James Gelfand: Employers design health benefits to help our beneficiaries. We don’t sell insurance. We want networks that meet our patients’ needs. Why would we want to cover an operation, but leave out the anesthesia? We want our employees to be able to afford their health insurance too, and that means we must be able to say no when providers are gaming the system. 1:08:10 Dr. Vidor Friedman: Unlike most physicians, emergency physicians are prohibited by federal law from discussing with a patient any potential costs of care or insurance details until they are screened and stabilized. This important patient protection known as Emtala, ensures physicians focus on the immediate medical needs of patients. However, it also means that patients cannot fully understand the potential cost of their care or the limitations of their insurance coverage until they receive the bill. 1:10:40 Dr. Vidor Friedman: The goal should be a system in which everyone is in-network, or essentially that. That requires a level playing field between providers and insurers. Insurers are concerned that benchmarking the even median charges, favors providers. Providers are concerned that benchmarking the median in-network rates, favors insurer’s. What’s Congress to do? ACEP supports a system that has already proven to be balanced between insurers and providers. That is a baseball style independent dispute resolution process similar to that used in New York and noted in the legislative proposal put forth by Doctors, Ruiz Rowe and Busan. 2:02:30 Rep. Brett Guthrie: If there does become a federal arbitration system, what do you think congressional oversight should be? And I don’t know if that should be something that I’m supposed to talk about or…Sonji Wilkes: Well, I’ve been sitting here listening, thinking I pay my insurance premiums, I do my part and I expect the bill to be paid. I mean, there’s only so much I can do to control that and I don’t really care how the reimbursement works. And quite frankly, I think the insurance industry is doing probably better in their bottom line than my bottom line. Um, I want to go to the best provider possible and I want the best care possible. I don’t really care how the payment works. 2:34:50 Dr. Sherif Zaafran: Well, I can tell you that from the physician’s standpoint, for emergency room physicians for example; the average weighted cost of every visit is about $155. 3:49:00 CEO Rick Sherlock: The median cost of a helicopter air transport is $10,199 according to a study conducted in 2017. If you look at the cost of uncompensated care, because Medicare pays less than $.60 on the dollar of that 10,199. About $5,998, Medicaid pays significantly less than that. Less than $3,500 on average, and the uninsured pay about $350. Those make up…those three groups make up 70% of air medical transports. So when you take that cost of uncompensated care and you add it to the median cost of $10,200, that’s the average charge of $36,000 that the representative from New Mexico referenced earlier. When you…when those kinds of situations happen, no one in our industry wants to see a patient or their family placed in jeopardy because they’ve just had a health emergency. Our members will sit down with each individual and their families and work out a solution tailored for them. 3:54:30 Dr. Sherif Zaafran: Again, there is no such thing as an out of network provider. There is a provider who may happen to be out of network with that specific product. So the only one who knows what the product is, is of course the patient and the insurance carrier and they’re the only ones who really have the information as to whether they’re in-network or out of network. Hearing: , June 11, 2019 Hearing: , June 11, 2019 Hearing: Witnesses: Rep. Katie Porter (CA) James Patrick Gelfand: Senior Vice President, Health Policy, ERISA Industry Committee Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Board of Trustees, American Medical Association Tom Nickels: Executive Vice President, Government Relations and Public Policy, American Hospital Association Jeannette Thornton: Senior Vice President for Product, Employer, and Commercial Policy at America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) Transcript *7:15 Chairman Lloyd Doggett (TX): Fortunately, there now appears to be a growing consensus. Most recently joined by president Trump that holding the patient harmless should form the foundation for any surprise billing proposal. Under the legislation that I advanced, patients would only be charged in network cost sharing rates in emergency situations and non-emergency situations out of network charges would be permitted only when the patient has agreed in advance after receiving effective notice regarding any providers and services together with estimated charges. No other bill addressing this issue has yet been filed here in the house, but there is a very useful discussion draft proposal that is being circulated on a bipartisan basis by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and there’s several proposals that have service in the Senate. While every proposal currently begins with the basic premise of the enterprise billing act, conflict remains over how to resolve insurer provider disputes. *13:40 Rep. Katie Porter (CA): I’m concerned about surprise billing, as someone who’s dedicated my life to protecting consumers, but also because I have had to fight my own battle with surprise billing. On August 3rd last year when I was on the campaign trail, I started to feel pain in my abdomen. At 1:00 PM I could not continue and I went home. At 4:31, I texted my campaign manager that I needed to go to the emergency room. I couldn’t safely drive through the pain and I remember sitting on my front porch, so if I lost consciousness, somebody might find me and I wouldn’t be home alone. I didn’t call an ambulance because I was concerned about the cost. I could not drive and I asked my manager to please take me to Hoag hospital. I chose that hospital even though it was farther away from other providers, because I knew Hoag was an in-network facility. When I got to the hospital, I waited six hours alone in the emergency exam room without treatment. When I finally went to surgery, my doctor told me it was nothing to worry about, just a routine appendectomy. I was given anesthesia and when I awoke, the team around me was panicking. They couldn’t get my temperature to drop and they couldn’t get my blood pressure to rise. My appendix had ruptured hours before causing an infection that was making my whole body very sick. I spent the next five days in the hospital receiving powerful IV antibiotics. A few weeks later, I received the bill from my insurance company. The idea of an astronomical hospital bill had weighed heavily on me and I was happy to see that the cost of my emergency room treatment and assessment and hospital charges, and nearly all of my inpatient services, were covered. I remember sitting at my kitchen table and taking a deep breath filled with relief, but a few days later I received another bill. This one from my surgeon. While the hospital I had gone to was in-network, the insurance company now claimed the surgeon was not, even though they had sent me a notification telling me that my surgeon was in-network . Enclosed in that bill for nearly $3,000, was a handout from my surgeon detailing the steps I would have to take while recovering in order to fight to have my insurance company cover the care. So many of his patients had been put in this situation, that this medical doctor had used his staff to address patient billing problems. That’s not what he trained for in medical school. Your so-called explanation of benefits and the surgeon’s handout explained that he was being treated as an out of network provider even though he was employed by and worked at an in-network hospital. As someone in an emergency situation, I had no ability to assess whether he was in or out of network, and in those cases insurers are supposed to cover the costs, but I got that bill because my insurer put profits before patients. I called insurance company to request an appeal. The benefits manager kept asking me questions to guide me and coach me towards saying that it was my surgeon’s fault to blame him for overcharging me. She asked me to call the surgeon and attack my doctor for his bill. Apparently, to Anthem Blue Cross, $3,000 was too high a price for saving my life. The tens of thousands in premiums I’d paid to that company over the years were not enough to have them, cause them to cover the lifesaving care. Nearly five months after I was hospitalized, the surgeon simply requested payment, and at that point I reached out to my employer of the University of California Irvine. That’s when I learned that U.C. Irvine has a designated patient advocate, a medical doctor, whose sole job is to help university employees get the health insurance that the university and the employees pay for. Can we just reflect on that for a moment? The university is paying a medical doctor to do nothing but navigate insurance. Finally, the patient advocate, invoking the fact that I had just been just elected to Congress, was able to get the insurance company to agree to pay my surgeon’s bill. But here’s what I learned from getting sick. I am well educated. I had an employer prepared to help me. I have professional experience fighting for consumer rights, but there are thousands of Americans with fewer resources than me who are surprised with bills far more devastating than mine. I’m here today because they refuse to accept this as the status quo. I refuse to stand idly by while families go bankrupt because of surprise medical bills. Any solution to this issue must rely, must not rely, excuse me, on the patient’s ability to go to war with the insurer or with their provider. That is not the solution. It’s time we start putting patients first. 31:00 Jeanette Thornton: We ask that federal legislation focus on four things. First, balanced billing should be banned in situations where inpatients are involuntarily treated by an out of network provider. This includes emergency health services at any hospital, any health healthcare services or treatment performed at an in-network facility by an out of network provider, not selected by the patient and ambulance transportation in an emergency. Second, health insurance providers should be required to reimburse out of network providers inappropriate and reasonable amount in those above scenarios. Third, state should be required to establish an independent dispute resolution process that works in tandem with the established benchmark. Fourth hospitals or other healthcare providers should be required to provide advanced notice to patients of the network status of the treating providers. We appreciate the health sub-committee chairman Lloyd Doggett has introduced legislation to end surprise billing act or HR 861, which would establish a role for hospitals in providing such notices, along with banning balanced billing. AHIP supports this bill. 46:00 Chairman Lloyd Doggett (TX): What I’m referring to is the difference… Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Right. Chairman Lloyd Doggett (TX): …in charges and why one one price for those who are in network and another for those that are out. Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Right. So there is a benefit for me to be in network with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for example. I get something from that. They sit with me, they show me their data. We had…we worked together on incentive programs to sort of curb costs. If there’s an insurance company that’s in town that does none of that activity to improve the care of the population in my town, but yet wants to benefit from the same rate of compensation to me, they’re doing nothing to earn that discount. Blue Cross sits across from me on a weekly or monthly basis to improve the care of my population. But Golden Rule insurance, that’s new in town for example, doesn’t do any of that work and yet wants to benefit from having the same provider rates. No, I mean, I take a discounted rate from Blue Cross because of all this other robust activity. But if you’re not offering me anything to participate in your network, then naturally, you should be expected to pay more for my services. Right? I get something from Blue Cross. I get nothing from Golden Rule. 53:05 Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Medicare is usually sort of the foundation upon which all the other insurance companies tend to set their rates. So when I participate in network, like with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, it’s usually about 110/ 115% of Medicare rates. So that’s one step higher. If I don’t participate with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, then that rate is so I can get the assigned rate from them and then I have a choice about what to do with the balance. And usually in my practice, I write that off. I don’t balance bill the patient. Uh, but Blue Cross Blue Shield sort of sets their rate and that’s it. My point is that, if-in Blue Cross Blue Shield, I have a great relationship with, we do a lot of constructive work together. But if a new insurance company comes into town and puts up billboards and markets their product and says, here, come, come buy our policy, and then they get 15,000 patients to sign up, but has never come to my door to say, you know, when they have an ear, nose and throat problem, we’d like you to be in-network and provide their care. Why should they get the benefit of the in-network price that Blue Cross Blue Shield gets? So, my point, is that that out of network price for this new insurance company that wants me to take care of their patient, but never came to sit down with me to sign a contract, ought to be something that I negotiate with them, not something that’s dictated to me. 55:50 Rep. Mike Thompson (CA): A staff person of mine went to the emergency room. He has insurance. His insurance covered nearly everything, including a cat scan. But a few weeks later, he got two separate bills from physicians he never saw and didn’t ask to see. They reviewed some of his test results and the bill for those two physicians was larger than the bill for his total ER visit. 56:15 Rep. Mike Thompson (CA): It’s also alarming that, uh, according to one study, 20% of hospital visits, one of every five of those visits, uh, that began in the ER, resulted in a surprise bill. 58:30 Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Uh, yes, sir. So, in answer to your question, there are multiple already cases documented of insurance companies shrinking their network in California because they can get the same service at that rate with physicians that are out of their network. And so, contracts are already not being renewed for physicians that have had contracts for 20 years, and then they go to renew it and they’re dropped from the network. 1:03:00 Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: My wife and I, we contract with probably about 30 insurance companies. When I take a kid’s tonsils out, one insurance company may be $200- may pay me $200, one pays me about $450 and everything in between. I can’t have a different fee in my fee schedule for each of those. So my fee for tonsillectomy is about $475, so that when I do it, I know that the highest paying payer, I’m still-they’re still within that threshold, right? Because if I charge $400, they’re not going to send me $450. They’re going to send me $400. 1:07:00 Jeanette Thornton: So it’s very interesting what we’ve seen and when it comes from a hospital perspective. It’s maybe only 15% of the hospitals nationwide that are causing this issue that results in, you know, 80% of the visits. One of the statistics had cited a lot that result in a surprise medical bill. So this is not every doctor. This is not every hospital that are resulting in these surprise medical bills. It’s really more of a targeted problem. 1:09:15 Tom Nickels: In terms of how much of this is really going on, I think there is a certain level of frustration. I don’t know that we all know with certainty. The only federal study that I’ve seen, that we’ve seen, is from the Federal Trade Commission, which basically said that they studied ambulances going to hospital emergency departments. 99% of hospital emergency departments in that study were in-network. So it’s not the hospital itself that is out of network. it is people, physicians who practice in our institution. 1:22:20 Tom Nickels: The federal government-state government need to acknowledge that they underpay. I mean, Medpack and others acknowledges that this isn’t just industries talking about ourselves. AMA has said the same thing on the physician side, but I think that the federal government and state governments have a responsibility to pay more adequately. The truth of the matter is, and we haven’t even talked about this, is the cost shift is that private insurers pay more than costs and the government pays less. That should end. The government should take responsibility. 1:38:00 Tom Nickels: We cannot force by law, physicians who are not employed by us to take in-network rates. That is-if we did that, um, we would be sued. It would be restraint of trade. Um, however, what we’re trying to suggest here and I think what the other panelists are trying to suggest, is we have a way to protect the patient from that surprise bill. To your question about who are these physicians that you don’t even know about who are treating you, if you come in in an emergency, you don’t know what’s going on. And you need to be taking care of it, who’s ever there is going to take care of you. The other situation which we’ve talked about is when you knowingly come into an inpatient in-network facility. You did all the right things, but an out of network physician, (anesthesiologists, perhaps radiologists, pathologists) takes care of you. And that’s where the, uh, the bill is generated from. So we cannot make people do that. We try to get physicians to be in our networks-in the same networks. But again, this is an issue of private contracting. 1:42:05 Rep. Mike Kelly (PA): I do agree with you. If there’s limited talent there to take care of that specific problem, there has to be a way of compensating for it. Because at the end of the day, it is a business. Dr. Bobby Mukkamala: Right. So the solution is if an insurance company is going to come into Flint, Michigan and sell insurance, they know that eventually they’re going to need a hand surgeon, right? How do they sell insurance to a town that’s an industrial based town, where there’s a lot of hand injuries and not have any hand surgeons in their network? When they put up the billboard saying, “we’re selling insurance here”, they should have at the same time look at their provider list and say, “you know what”?, we’re missing an orthopedic hand surgeon. "Let’s go find one and figure out how to get him in-network or get her in-network. Right? And that’s a step that’s skipped routinely, right? They’ll sell the product for years and then fill in this way with lack of a good provider network by trying to negotiate out of network rates that are the same as in-network because they’d skip that first step, right? Maintain a network adequacy-establish a network adequacy before you sell your product. 1:48:30 James Gelfand: Many of the hospitals are not doing what Zuckerberg hospital was doing. The hospital will be in-network, but they will have outsourced their emergency room to a Wall Street owned private company and that company won’t take insurance. And those guys are definitely making enough profits that Wall Street is suggesting that people should invest in those companies because of these relationships they have with the in-network hospitals and the out of network emergency rooms. , May 9, 2019 13:00 President Donald Trump: Today I’m announcing principles that should guide Congress in developing bipartisan legislation to end surprise medical billing. And these senators and congressmen and women that are with us today are really leading the charge. And I appreciate that they’re all here. Thank you all. Thank you all for being here. This is fantastic. And I think it’s going to be a successful charge. From what I understand, we have bipartisan support, which is rather shocking. That means it’s very important. That means it’s very good. But that’s great. First, in emergency care situations, patients should never have to bear the burden of out-of-network costs they didn’t agree to pay. So-called balance billing should be prohibited for emergency care. Pretty simple. Second, when patients receive scheduled, non-emergency care, they should be given a clear and honest bill upfront. That means they must be given prices for all services and out-of-pocket payments for which they will be responsible. This will not just protect Americans from surprise charges; it will empower them to choose the best option at the lowest possible price. Third, patients should not receive surprise bills from out-of-network providers that they did not choose themselves. Very unfair. Fourth, legislation should protect patients without increasing federal healthcare expenditures. Additionally, any legislation should lead to greater competition, more choice — very important — and more healthcare freedom. We want patients to be in charge and in total control. And finally, in an effort to address surprise billing, what we do is, all kinds of health insurance — large groups, small group, individual markets, everything. We want everything included. No one in America should be bankrupted and unexpectedly by healthcare costs that are absolutely out of control. No family should be blindsided by outrageous medical bills. And we’ve gone a long way to stop that. , House Committee on Education and Labor, April 2, 2019 Witnesses: Christen Linke Young: Fellow at USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy Ilyse Schuman: Senior Vice President for Health Policy at American Benefits Council Frederick Isasi, Executive Director at Families USA Professor Jack Hoadley: Research Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute Transcript 7:15 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): This is the first hearing the United States Congress has held on surprise billing. 7:30 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): Surprise medical bills occur when patients covered by health insurance are subject to higher than expected out of pocket costs for care, received from a provider who is outside of their plan’s network. The victims of surprised medical billing often have no control over whether they’re medical provider is in or out of network. 8:15 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): A young San Francisco woman named Nina Dang suffered a severe bike accident. She was barely lucid when a bystander called an ambulance and took her to an emergency room at a nearby hospital. Before she knew it, doctors had done x-rays and scans and put her broken arm in a splint and then sent her on her way. A few months later, Nina was hit with a $20,000 medical bill because the hospital, which she did not choose, was an out of network facility. 8:30 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): But even patients who are able to take precautions to avoid out of network costs during a medical emergency, are not immune from surprise bills. Scott Cohan suffered a violent attack one night in Austin, Texas. He woke up in an emergency room with a broken jaw, a throbbing headache, and staples in his head. Despite his shock and immense pain, Scott took out his phone and searched through his insurer’s website to make sure he was laying in an in-network hospital bed. When he found out it was, he proceeded with unnecessary jaw surgery. Imagine Scott’s frustration and devastation when he received a surprise medical bill for nearly $8,000. It turned out that the emergency room was in his insurance network, but the oral surgeon who worked in the ER was not. 16:00 Rep. Tim Walberg (MI): 39% of insured working age adults reported they had received a surprise medical bill in the past year from a doctor, hospital, or lab that they thought was covered by their insurance. Of the 39% of individuals who received surprise medical bills, 50% owed more than $500. 27:05 Ilyse Schuman: While a number of states have sought to address this problem or risk that exempts self insured plans from State Insurance Regulations to ensure that national employers can offer uniform health benefits to employees residing in different states. Accordingly, the problem of surprise billing cannot be left to the states to solve. 33:20 Frederick Isasi: So what’s most important to remember about this issue? We are talking about situations in which families, despite enrolling in health insurance, paying their premiums, doing their homework and trying to work within the system, are being left with completely unanticipated and sometimes financially devastating healthcare bills. And this is happening in part, and I want to say this really clearly because hospitals, doctors and insurers are washing their hands of their patient’s interest. 33:50 Frederick Isasi: Take for example, one significant driver of this problem. The movement of hospitals to offload sapping requirements for their emergency departments to third party management companies. These hospitals very often make no requirements of these companies to ensure the staffing of the ED fit within the insurance networks that the hospitals have agreed to. As a result, a patient who does their homework ahead of time and rightly thinks they’re going to an in network hospital, received services from an out of network physician and a surprise medical bill follows. 34:20 Frederick Isasi: Let me give you one real world example. Nicole Briggs from Morrison, Colorado outside of Denver. Nicole woke up in the middle of the night with intense stomach pain. She went to a freestanding ER. She was told she needed an emergency appendectomy. She went to a local hospital. She did her due diligence. Confirmed repeatedly that the hospital and its providers were in network. However, months later she received a surprise bill from the surgeon who ended up, was out of network. The bill to Nicole was $5,000. Nicole tried to work it out with her insurance company, but within two years, a collection agency representing the surgeon took her to court and won the full amount, including interest. As a result, a lien was placed on her home and the collection agency garnished her wages each month. This came right before Nicole was about to deliver a baby and go on maternity leave. And by the way, this investigation found that there were over 170 liens placed on people’s homes in the Denver area by emergency department physicians. 38:05 Professor Jack Hoadley: Our research shows that today, 25 states have acted to protect consumers from surprise bills in at least some circumstances. Nine of these 25 meet our standards as offering what we consider to be comprehensive protection. For protections to be comprehensive, we look to number one, whether they apply in both emergency situations and an in-network hospital setting, such as electing an in-network surgeon, but being treated by another clinician who’s out of network. Second, that these laws apply to both HMO’s, PPO’s and all other types of insurance. Third, that the law does address both insurers by requiring them to hold consumer’s harmless from balanced bills and providers by barring them from sending balanced bills. And fourth, that the laws adopt some kind of a payment standard. Uh, either a rule to determine payment from insurance provider or an arbitration process to resolve payment disputes. Although these four conditions don’t guarantee complete protection for consumers, they combine to protect consumers in most emergency and network hospital settings that the states can address. But as you’ve already heard, state protections are limited by federal law, ERISA, which exempt states from state regulation’s, self insured, employer sponsored plans. 43:30 Chairman Frederica Wilson (FL): Under current law, who is responsible for making sure that a doctor or a hospital is in-network? Is it the doctor, the insurance company or the patient themselves? Frederick Isasi: Uh, chairman Wilson, thank you for the question. To be very clear, it is the patient themselves that has a responsibility and these negotiations are very complex. These are some of the most important and intense negotiations in the healthcare sector between a payer and a provider. There is absolutely no visibility for a consumer to understand what’s going on there. And so the notion that a consumer would walk into an emergency department and know, for example, that their doctor was out of network because that hospital could not reach agreement on an in-network provider for the ED is absurd, right? There’s no way they would ever know that. And similarly, if you walk in and you received surgery and it turns out your anesthesiologist isn’t in-network, there’s no way for the consumer to know that. Um, and I would like to say there’s some discussion about transparency and creating, you know, sort of provider directories. We’ve tried to do that in many instances. And what we know is that right now the healthcare sector has no real way to provide real actual insight to consumers about who’s in-network, and who’s out of network. I would-probably everybody in this room has tried at some point to figure out if a doctor’s in-network and out of network and as we know that system doesn’t work. So this idea that consumers can do research and find out what’s happened behind the scenes in these very intensive negotiations is absurd and it doesn’t work. 46:30 Professor Jack Hoadley: Provider directories can be notoriously inaccurate. One of the things that, even if they are accurate, that I’ve seen in my own family is you may be enrolled in Blue Cross-You ask your physician, "are they participating in Blue Cross? They say “yes”, but it turns out Blue Cross has a variety of different networks. This would be true of any insurance company, and so you know, you may be in this one particular flavor of the Blue Cross plan and your provider may not participate in that particular network. 47:30 Christen Linke Young: Notice isn’t enough here. Even if a consumer had perfect information, which is not a reasonable expectation, but even if they did have perfect information, they can’t do anything with that information. They can’t go across town to get their anesthesia and then come back to the hospital. Um, their-even with perfect information, they may be treated by out of network providers. And so we need to set a standard that limits how much providers can be paid in these out of network scenarios that makes it sort of less attractive for providers to remain out of network. And so instead, they are subject to more normal market conditions. 1:01:25 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): I’ve had my name in networks that I wasn’t in. That you-that you use, and many of those unscrupulous networks, will use that too to get people to sign up because this doctor, my doctor is in there when you’re really not. 1:10:25 Frederick Isasi: Um, there is a concept here, which is, what does in network mean, right? When you sit down with your husband or your partner and decide what kind of insurance do we want for our kids, right? We want to make sure that they can go to the ED if they’re playing soccer, they get hurt, all those sorts of things. The question is when you make that decision and you say, "Oh, look, this hospital is in-network, right? But what does that mean? If you can go to that hospital and all the services they’re providing are out of network, right? And I think as you’ve said, and as we’ve heard from other folks, the patient is not the person who should be responsible for that. It’s the folks who are negotiating. It’s the hospital, it’s the doc’s and the payers that should bear that responsibility. So let’s start by clarifying what does in-network mean, so that we have some way of making educated decisions about the insurance that we’re purchasing and putting our trust in. 1:29:30 Professor Jack Hoadley: There may be instances where consumers get bills sent to them, aren’t aware that they don’t need to pay them, so don’t start the process. And that goes to this sort of point of how do you really make sure it’s not the consumer’s responsibility to figure out that, oh, I don’t, by law, I don’t actually have to pay this bill. Now what do I do to make sure that happens? If you don’t know that, uh, that doesn’t really help you. And so what some other states like California has done, is to include a provision that says the provider really can’t send a bill and if they do end up sending a bill and the consumer pays it, there’s an obligation on that provider to refund the amount that was paid back to the consumer. And that’s something we haven’t seen in some of the other states. 1:39:15 Rep. Joe Courtney (CT): ERISA really has to be dealt with if we’re going to really have a comprehensive solution for America’s patients. Is that correct? Ilyse Schuman: That’s exactly right. Um, for the self funded plan too 60% of employer based plans that are not subject to these state laws, like in Connecticut or other states, we have to have a federal solution that addresses ERISA, so that we deal with this problem in a uniform nationwide way. Documentary: , September 10, 2006 Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD198: Rationing the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

17 juni 2019 | 162 min

The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund is being rationed due to a lack of funding and an approaching end date for the program. In this episode, learn about the shocking, growing number of 9/11 victims, understand why these victims are in danger of having to bear the financial consequences of their injuries on their own, and examine the details and status of H.R. 1327, the bill that would solve this problem for good. Jamie Kilstein joins Jen for the thank you's. _________________________________________________ Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! ____________________________________________________ Recommended Podcast Episodes _____________________________________________________ Additional Reading Article: by Jordain Carney, The Hill, June 12, 2019. Bill: by 116th Congress, June 12, 2019. Article: by Devlin Barrett, Washington Post, June 12, 2019. Bill: by 116th Congress, February 25, 2019. Document: by Department of Justice, October 3, 2018. Article: by Joanna Walters, The Guardian, September 10, 2016. Bill: , 114th Congress, Congress.gov, June 11, 2015. Bill: by 114th Congress, Congress.gov, April 24, 2015. YouTube Video: by Mcdlover4, March 23, 2012. Article: by Jeremy P. Jacobs, New York Times, September 9, 2011. Article: by Robin Shulman, Washington Post, April 23, 2008. Document: by Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2003. Bill: by 107th Congress, Congress.gov, September 21, 2001. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , June 11, 2019 Witnesses: Rupa Bhattacharyya: Special Master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Department of Justice Dr. Jaqueline Moline M.D.: Chair of Occupational Medicine, Epidemiology and Prevention at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Lila Nordstrom: 9/11 Survivor Anesa Maria St. Rose Henry: Widow of Candidus Henry, Construction Worker and 9/11 Responder Thomas Mohnal: Special Agent, FBI and 9/11 Responder Michael O’Connell: Retired Lieutenant and 9/11 Responder, FDNY Luis Alvarez: Retired Detective and 9/11 Responder, NYPD Jon Stewart: 9/11 Responders and Survivors Advocate YouTube: , September 10, 2006 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD197: Constitutional Crisis

31 maj 2019 | 133 min

The United States system of government depends on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches keeping each other accountable, but what happens when two of the branches refuse to police the third? We might soon find out. In this episode, by examining the Attorney General William Barr's response to the release of the Mueller report, learn about recent events which foreshadow our system of government being tested in ways it hasn't been tested before. _________________________________________________ Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! ____________________________________________________ Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes _____________________________________________________ Additional Reading Article: by Tom Hamburger, Washington Post, May 16, 2019. Article: by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, May 9, 2019. Podcast Episode: Timberlane Media, May 4, 2019. Article: by Matt Zapotosky,Josh Dawsey,Tom Hamburger and Ashley Parker, Washington Post, May 2, 2019. Letter: , by Adam Schiff, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives, April 30, 2019. Article: by Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotsky, The Washington Post, April 30, 2019. Article: by Ryan Goodman, Just Security, April 15, 2019. Article: by John Solomon, The Hill, April 1, 2019. Article: by Brad Heath, USA Today, March 28, 2019. Report: by U.S. Department of Justice, Special Counsel's Office, March 27, 2019. Document: by William Barr Attorney General of the United States, March 24, 2019. Document: by Jen Briney, March 2019. Article: by Devlin Barrett, Washington Post, December 20, 2018. Article: by by Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times, November 29, 2018. Memo: by Bill Barr, June 8, 2018. Article: by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, August 19, 2016. Article: by Tom Winter and Ken Dilanian, NBC News, August 18, 2016. Document: by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Article: by Brad Heath, USA Today, April 7, 2015. Article: by Carrie Johnson, NPR, July 9, 2010. Article: UVA Miller Center, April 5, 2001. Article: by David Johnston, The New York Times, December 25, 1992. Article: by Sharon LaFraniere, The Washington Post, November 12, 1991. Article: by Michael Isikoff, Washington Post, August 14, 1991 Article: by Matthew Rothschild, The Chicago Tribune, December 21, 1989. Letter: by Honorable Don Edwards, The U.S. Department of Justice, November 7, 1989. Article: by Ronald J. Ostrow, LA Times, October 13, 1989. _____________________________________________________ Sound Clip Sources Press Conference: , May 29, 2019. 4:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. 5:40 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: First, the opinion explicitly explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. 6:10 Special Counsel Robert Mueller: And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, May 8, 2019. 14:40 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): I urge my colleagues to think about how the department’s latest position and their insistence on ignoring our subpoena effects our committee, over time. Our fight is not just about the Mueller report, although we must have access to the Mueller report. Our fight is about defending the rights of Congress as an independent branch to hold the president, any president, accountable. 15:20 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The chairman of the oversight and Reform Committee has been sued in his personal capacity to prevent them from acquiring certain financial records from the Trump organization. 15:30 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): The president has stated that his administration will oppose all subpoenas, and in fact, virtually all document requests are going unsatisfied. Witnesses are refusing to show up at hearings. This is unprecedented. If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. As a coequal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue, or we will not be a coequal branch of government. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, May 1, 2019. 7:50 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): I would like to do more to harden our infrastructure because the Russians did it. It wasn’t some 400 pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere. It was the Russians, and they’re still doing it. And it can be the Chinese, it could be somebody next. So my takeaway from this report is that we’ve got a lot of work to do to defend democracy against the Russians and other bad actors. And I promise the committee we will get on. Would that work? Hopefully in a bipartisan fashion. 9:20 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): This is what Strzok said on February 12th, 2016 “Now he’s in charge of the Clinton email investigation”. 11:25 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): “Trump is a fucking idiot”. 17:05 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA: First Special Counsel Mueller’s report confirms that the Russian government implemented a social media campaign to mislead millions of Americans. 32:50 Attorney General William Barr: The special counsel investigated whether anyone affiliated with president Trump’s campaign conspired or coordinated with these criminal schemes. They concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that there had been any conspiracy or coordination with the Russian government or the IRA. 33:40 Attorney General William Barr: Now we first heard that the special council’s decision not to decide the obstruction issue at at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for Special Council Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC’s opinion, he would have found obstruction. 34:40 Attorney General William Barr: Once we heard that the special counsel was not reaching a conclusion on obstruction, the deputy and I discussed and agreed that the department had to reach a decision. We had the responsibility to assess the evidence as set forth in the report and to make the judgment. I say this because the special counsel was appointed to carry out the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the department and to do it as part of the Department of Justice. The powers he was using, including the power of using a grand jury and using compulsory process exists for that purpose. The function of the Department of Justice in this arena (which is to determine whether or not there has been criminal conduct). It’s a binary decision. Is there enough evidence to show a crime and do we believe a crime has been committed? 35:30 Attorney General William Barr: We don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public, we do so to make a decision. 35:40 Attorney General William Barr: And here we thought there was an additional reason, which is this was a very public investigation and we had made clear that the results of the investigation we’re going to be made public, and the deputy and I felt that the evidence developed by the special counsel was not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime, and therefore it would be irresponsible and unfair for the department to release a report without stating the department’s conclusions and thus leave it hanging as to whether the department considered there had been criminal conduct. 38:13 Attorney General William Barr: We prepared the letter for that purpose. To state the bottom line conclusions. We use the language from the report to state those bottom line conclusions. I analogize it to announcing after an extended trial what the verdict of the trial is, pending release of the full transcript. 38:40 Attorney General William Barr: We were not trying to summarize the 410 page report. 44:05 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Very quickly, give us your reasoning why you think it would be inappropriate to proceed forward on obstruction of justice in this case. Attorney General William Barr: Well, um, generally speaking, an obstruction case, uh, typically has two aspects to it. One, there’s usually an underlying criminality that… Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Let’s stop right here. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Was there an underlying crime here? Attorney General William Barr: No. 48:00 Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do you think the President’s campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the Russians? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): And the answer is no according to Bob Mahler. Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): He couldn’t decide about obstruction, you did. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: That’s right. 1:02:08 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): In volume two of the report, the special council declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. Instead, the special council laid out 200 or so pages relating to a potential obstruction analysis and then dumped that on your desk. In your press conference you said that you asked the special council whether he would have made a charging decision or recommended charges on obstruction, but for the office of legal console’s opinion on charging sitting presidents, and that the special counsel made clear that was not the case. So Mr. Barr, is that an accurate description of your conversation with the special council? Attorney General William Barr: Yes, he, he reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. If the special console found facts as sufficient to constitute obstruction of justice, would he have stated that finding? Attorney General William Barr: If he had found that, then I think he would state it. Yes. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Yeah. 1:03:45 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Do you agree with the reasons that he offered for not making a decision and Volume II of his report and why or why not? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I’m not really sure of his reasoning. I really could not recapitulate his analysis, which is one of the reasons in my March 24th letter. I simply stated the fact that he did not reach a conclusion and didn’t try to put words in his mouth. Um, I think that if he felt that he shouldn’t have gone down the path of making a traditional prosecuted decision, then he shouldn’t have investigated. That was the time to, uh, pull up. Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Okay. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:37:53 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you first learn of the New York Times and Washington Post stories that would make the existence of this letter public? The ones that came out last night? Attorney General William Barr: I think it could have been yesterday, but I’m not sure. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When they contacted you to ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: They didn’t contact me. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)*: Contact to DOJ and ask for any comment? Attorney General William Barr: I can’t actually remember how it came up, but someone mentioned it. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): So you…at some point you knew that the Mueller letter was going to become public and that was probably yesterday? Attorney General William Barr: I think so. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us in Congress Attorney General William Barr: This morning. 1:40:30 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The… Attorney General William Barr: As I said, I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries. Period. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, you know, we can… Attorney General William Barr: Frankly… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): This is another hairsplitting exercise because Bob Mueller, (who I think we all agree is fairly credible) actually described your letter as a summary. So you can say it wasn’t a summary, but Mueller said it was a summary and I don’t think… Attorney General William Barr: I wasn’t interested in summarizing the whole report. As I say, I was stating that the bottom line conclusions of the report… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Your letter said it’s intended to describe the report, I quote your words… Attorney General William Barr: Yeah, describe the report meaning volume one [inaudible] Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When you describe the report in four pages and it’s a 400 page report, I don’t know why you’re cowboying about whether it’s a summary or not. Attorney General William Barr: Because I state in the letter that I’m stating that the principle conclusions. 1:41:13 Attorney General William Barr: You know, Bob Mueller is the equivalent of a US attorney. He was exercising the powers of the attorney general subject to the supervision of the attorney general. He’s part of the Department of Justice. His work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. At that point, it was my baby. 1:42:59 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Um, the interesting thing to me is that it goes on to say that because of the OLC opinion, we have to give the president an extra benefit of the doubt because he is denied his day in court where he could exonerate himself. That seems like a fallacy to me because if you are the president of the United States, you can either waive or readily override the OLC opinion and say, “I’m ready to go to trial.” “I want to exonerate myself.” “Let’s go.” Could you not? Attorney General William Barr: How is this relevant to my decisions? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): It’s relevant… Attorney General William Barr: Because I assumed that there was no OLC opinion. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Well, we have a report in front of us that says that this influenced the outcome. And in particular it says it influenced the outcome because it deprived the president of his ability to have his day in court. And my point to you is that the president could easily have his day in court by simply waving or overriding this OLC opinion that has no judicial basis. Correct? Attorney General William Barr: Well, I don’t…I don’t think that there was anything to have a day in court on. I think that the government did not have a prosecutable case, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): but part…well Mueller obviously didn’t agree because he left that up to you. Attorney General William Barr: Well… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): He said that he could neither confirm nor deny that there was a prosecutable case here. He left that to you and when he did, he said, and you apparently have agreed that this OLC opinion bears on it, and then it would be unfair to the president to put them to the burden of being indicted and not having the ability to be charged himself… Attorney General William Barr: I don’t want to characterize…have Bob’s thought process on this. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): I’m not asking you to characterize it. It’s in his report. He’s put it in writing. Attorney General William Barr: I’m not sure what he means by that in the report. 1:54:13 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): Tell me again briefly why Mr. Mueller told you he reached no conclusion…or he couldn’t make up his mind or whatever. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Attorney General William Barr: I really couldn’t recapitulate it. I… it was unclear to us. 2:31:25 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): The special council specifically said (at the same time I’m quoting), "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. He said it again at page 182, and yet in your summary and in the press room conference that you did, you in effect cleared the president on both so-called collusion. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. The difference is that I use the proper standard. Um, that statement you just read is actually a very strange statement. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): For four of the specific obstruction episodes, Robert Mueller concluded that it was substantial evidence on four on the three necessary elements of obstruction. Attorney General William Barr: Well, you’re…you’re on. You’re a prospect… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I have to finish my question with all… Attorney General William Barr: You haven’t let me finish my answer. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, uh, let me just finish the… Chairman Lindsay Graham (SC): We can do both. Attorney General William Barr: Alright, good. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Uh, you ignored in that press conference and in the summary that Robert Mueller found substantial evidence and it’s in the report, and we have a chart that shows the elements of that crime. Intent, interference with an ongoing investigation and the obstructive act. 2:38:35 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You started by citing this thing in Volume II about how the report says that they could not be sure that they could clearly say that he did not violate the law. As you know, that’s not the standard we use in the criminal justice system. It’s presumed that if someone is innocent and the government has to prove that they clearly violated the law. We’re not in the business of exoneration. We’re not in the business of proving they didn’t violate law. Attorney General William Barr: I found that whole act very… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): …exonerated him in your press conference and in your four page summary Attorney General William Barr: How did that start? I didn’t hear the beginning of the question? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You in effect exonerated or cleared the president? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t exonerate. I said that we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense, which is the job of the Justice Department and the job of the Justice Department is now over. That determines whether or not there’s a crime. The report is now in the hands of the American people. Everyone can decide for themselves. There’s an election in 18 months. That’s very democratic process, but we’re out of it and we have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon. 2:50:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): You lied to Congress. You told Representative Charlie Krist that you didn’t know what objections Mueller’s team might have to your March 24th so-called summary. You told Senator Chris Van Hollen that you didn’t know if Bob Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew you lied, and now we know. 2:51:10 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I expected you would try to protect the president, and indeed you did. In 1989…this isn’t something you hadn’t done before. In 1989, when you refuse to show Congress and OLC opinion that led to the arrest of Manual Noriega. In 1992, when you recommended partners for the subjects of the Iran Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19 page memo, telling “Donald Trump as president”, can’t be guilty of obstruction of justice, and then didn’t recuse yourself from the matter. From the beginning, you are addressing an audience of one. That person being Donald Trump. 3:00:40 Attorney General William Barr: How did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent. And the evidence now is that was without a basis and two years of his administration, uh, have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false. And you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report and found the opposite. 3:18:14 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In your March 24th summary, you wrote: “After reviewing the special council’s final report, deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.” Now the special council’s investigation produced a great deal of evidence. Um, I’ve led to believe it included witnesses, notes and emails, witnesses, congressional testimony, witnesses, interviews, um, which were summarized in the FBI 302 forms, former FBI Director Columbia’s memos and the president’s public statements. My question is, in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, no. We took a… we excepted… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did…Did Mr Rosenstein…? Attorney General William Barr: No, we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate and made our… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you accepted the report as the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did, uh, Mr Rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report…to your knowledge? Attorney General William Barr: Not to my knowledge. We accepted the statements in the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your… Attorney General William Barr: The characterization of the evidence is true. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): No. 3:20:17 Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): As the Attorney General of the United States, you run the United States Department of Justice. If in any US attorney’s office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime. Would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they’d had not reviewed the evidence? Attorney General William Barr: Well, that’s a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the U.S. Attorney. He’s the one who presents the report. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): But it was you who made the charging decisions there. You made the decision not to charge the president Attorney General William Barr: No, in the pross memo and in the declination memo… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You said it was your baby. What did you mean by that? Attorney General William Barr: It was my baby to let, to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And whose decision was it,? Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. In this case, it was the…you know, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, who… who decide on the final decision, and that is based on the memo as presented by the US Attorney’s office. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think you’ve made it clear that you’ve not looked at…we can move on. I think you’ve made it clear Sir that you’ve not looked at the evidence and we can move on. 3:22:25 Attorney General William Barr: You know I haven’t been the only decision maker here. Now let’s take the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who was approved by the Senate 94 to 6 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the Russian investing. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I’m glad you brought up that. That’s a great topic. Attorney General William Barr: He has 30 years experience and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and non-career. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Yes, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve, I’ve read a lot . I have another question and I’m glad you brought that subject up because I have a question about that. Earlier today in response to Senator Graham, you said quote “that you consulted with Rosenstein constantly” With respect to the special council’s investigation report, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is also a key witness and the firing of FBI Director Comey. Did you consult with…? I’m not finished. Attorney General William Barr: Yeah? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did you consult with DOJ Ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation? The subject, of which; he is also a witness. Attorney General William Barr: My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you had consulted with them and they cleared it? Attorney General William Barr: No, I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. Did you consider?.. Attorney General William Barr: That’s my understanding? I am…I Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): You don’t know whether he’s been cleared of a conflict of interest? Attorney General William Barr: You would be participating if there was a conflict of interest. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): So you’re saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office? Attorney General William Barr: I believe, well I believe it was reviewed and I… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): and what role should find…? Attorney General William Barr: I would also point out that this seems to be a bit of a flip flop because when the president’s supporters were challenging Rosenstein Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I think in this case that you’re not answering the question directly. Attorney General William Barr: What? Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Did the ethics officials in your office, in the Department of Justice, review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making a charging decision on an investigation, which he is also a witness in? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. So as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): In making a decision on the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): And, and the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? Had he been cleared on that? Attorney General William Barr: He was, he was the acting Attorney General on the Mueller investigation. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Had he been cleared? Attorney General William Barr: He had been, I am… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): By your side recommendation? Attorney General William Barr: I am informed before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): Of what? Attorney General William Barr: Serving as acting Attorney General on the Mueller case. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice? Attorney General William Barr: That is what the acting… Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): With the lack of offenses, which include him as a witness? Attorney General William Barr: Yeah. He, that’s what the acting Attorney General’s job is. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): To be a witness and to make the decision about being a prosecutor? Attorney General William Barr: Well. No. But the big charging decisions. Sen. Kamala Harris (CA): I have nothing else. My time has run out. 3:45:15 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): And President Trump. I am correcting my earlier statement, never allowed anybody to interview him directly under oath. Is that correct? Attorney General William Barr: I think that’s correct. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): Even though he said he’s ready to testify. Thank you. 3:45:42 Attorney General William Barr: The absence of an underlying crime doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be other motives for obstruction. Although, it gets a little bit harder to prove and more speculative as to what those motives might be. But the point I was trying to make earlier, is that in this situation of the president, (who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings), if in fact a proceeding was not well founded. If it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused and he would be worried about the impact on his administration. That’s important, because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here or, episodes, do involve the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority. And we now know that he was being falsely accused. 3:52:05 Attorney General William Barr: Right after March 5th, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And you made the decision when? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, probably on Sunday the 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): That’s the day the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. We made the decision… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And make the decision until the letter came out? Attorney General William Barr: No. No. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): You must have told somebody how to write the letter, you couldn’t… Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you actually decide that there was no obstruction? Attorney General William Barr: The 24th. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay. 3:52:35 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): When did you get the first draft of the Mueller report? Attorney General William Barr: The, the first?.. It wasn’t a draft. We got the final. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The first version of it that you saw? Attorney General William Barr: Well, the only version of it I saw. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Okay, the only version for you Sir. When you do first? Attorney General William Barr: The 22nd Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): The 22nd 3:52:50 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Now you told Senator Harris that you made your decision on the obstruction charge, you and Rosenstein, based on the Mueller report. Did I correctly infer that you made that decision then between the 22nd and the 24th? Attorney General William Barr: Well, we had had a lot of discussions about it before the 22nd but then the final decision was made on the 24th Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): and you didn’t… Attorney General William Barr: We had more than two and a half days to consider this. LLC had already done a lot of thinking about some of these issues even before, uh, the…we got the report. 4:03:30 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): This letter was an extraordinary act. A career prosecutor would rebuking the Attorney General of the United States memorializing in writing. Right? I know of no other incidents of that happening. Do you? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, I don’t consider Bob at this stage, a career prosecutor. He’s had a career as a prosecutor. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Well, he was a very eminent… Attorney General William Barr: Who was the head of the FBI for 12 years? Um… Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): He’s a career…He’s had a, he’s… law enforcement professional? Attorney General William Barr: Right? Yup. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): I know of no other instances of… Attorney General William Barr: But he was also political appointee and he was a political appointee with me at the Department of Justice. I don’t, I, you know, the letters a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memorandum of your conversation? Attorney General William Barr: Huh? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did you make a memory? Attorney General William Barr: No, I didn’t need anyone else around them. What? Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Did anyone, either you or anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with Robert Mueller? Attorney General William Barr: Yes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Who did that? Attorney General William Barr: Uh, there were notes taken of the call. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): May We have those notes? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT):Why not? Attorney General William Barr: Why should you have them? Hearing: , Department of Justice, April 18, 2019. 4:00 Attorney General William Barr: As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. 9:30 Attorney General William Barr: Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. 10:30 Attorney General William Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. 18:00 Attorney General William Barr: But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.” 19:30 Attorney General William Barr: And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. 20:15 Attorney General William Barr: Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not – I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision. Hearing: , House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, April 9, 2019. 1:07:10 Rep. Charlie Crist (FL): Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the Special Council’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that? Attorney General William Barr: No, I don’t. I suspect that they probably wanted more put out. Hearing: , House Oversight Committee, February 27, 2019. 4:01:34 Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): On January 17 of this year, the Wall Street Journal published a story stating that you hired John Gauger, the owner of a consulting company who works for Liberty University in Virginia, to rig at least two online polls related to Donald Trump. Did you hire him? Michael Cohen: Those were back in I believe 2015? Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. Michael Cohen: 2014. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): 2014. So you did hire him? Michael Cohen: Yes. I spoke with Mr. Gauger about manipulating these online polls. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): And did he use bots to manipulate the poll? Michael Cohen: He used algorithms and if that includes bots then the answer’s yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): Yes. That’s accurate. Did the president have any involvement Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): In directing you to do this? Michael Cohen: Yes. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (CA): What were the results of the poll Michael Cohen: Exactly where we wanted them to be. In the CNBC poll, we came in at number nine. And the Drudge Report, he was top of the Drudge Report as well. 4:50:20 Michael Cohen: So there was a contract that I ended up creating Mr Trump’s behalf for a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Victor Pinchuk. And it was that Mr. Trump was asked to come into participate in what was the Ukrainian American Economic Forum. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to go, but I was able to negotiate 15 minutes by Skype where they would have a camera, very much like a television camera, very much like that one. And they would translate Mr. Trump to the questionnaire and then he would respond back. And I negotiated a fee of $150,000 for 15 minutes. I was directed by Mr. Trump to have the contract done in the name of the Donald J. Trump foundation as opposed to Donald J. Trump or services rendered. Hearing: , Senate Judicary Committee, May 3, 2017. Witnesses: James Comey: FBI Director Sound Clips: *2:27:00: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): So potentially the President of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian interference in our election. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: I just worry… I don’t want to answer that because it seems to be unfair speculation. We will follow the evidence. We’ll try and find as much as we can and we’ll follow the evidence where it leads. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD196: The Mueller Report

19 maj 2019 | 148 min

We finally have the facts. The two year long investigation, lead by Robert Mueller, into whether or not the 2016 Donald Trump for President campaign worked with members of the Russian government to steal and release Democratic Party emails is now complete. In this episode, after reading every word of the 448 page report, Jen breaks what the facts indicate Donald Trump did and did not do so that we can all be "in the know" for the Congressional battles with the President that are sure to come. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Official Mueller Report Additional Reading Article: by Elaine Godfrey, The Atlantic, May 1, 2019. Document: U.S. Department of Justice, March 2019. Document: New York Times, March 2019. Article: by Matt Taibbi, RollingStone, March 25, 2019. Article: by Michael Rothfeld, Rob Barry and Joe Palazzolo, Washington Post, January 17, 2019. Article: by Audrey McNamara, The Daily Beast, January 13, 2019. Article: by Michele Goldberg, NY Times, November 29, 2018. Article: , by Marisa Schultz and Nikki Schwab, New York Post, November 28, 2018. Article: by Sara Murray and Eli Watkins, CNN, November 26, 2018. Article: by Gopal Ratnam, Government Technology, October 31, 2018. Article: by Jonathon Chait, NY Intelligencer, July 2018. Transcript: The White House, June 15, 2018. Article: by Chris Somerfeldt, NY Daily News, June 15, 2018 Article: by Honorable Maggie Haberman, Sharon LaFriere and Danny Hakim, NY Times, April 20, 2018. Article: by Evan Bush, Christine Clarridge, Dominic Gates and Hal Bernton, The Seattle Times, March, 26 2018. Article: by Matt Taibbi, Substack, March 23, 2018. Article: by Josephine Lukito and Chris Wells, Columbia Journalism Review, March 8, 2018. Article: by Joe Concha, The Hill, February 23, 2018. Document: by Committee of the Judiciary House of Representative U.S. Congress, December 13, 2017. Article: by Mark Landler and Gardiner Harris, NY Times, August, 31 2017. Article: by Stephen Crowley, NY Times, July 19, 2017. Document: by Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. Senate, June 8, 2017. Article: by Colleen Shalby, LA Times, May 17, 2017. Document: White House U.S. Press Secretary, May 9, 2017. Article: by Adam Entous, Ellen Naskashima and Greg Miller, The Washington Post, March 1, 2017 Article: by Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima Washington Post, February 9, 2017. Document: Confidential, by Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed, October 19, 2016. Article: by Mark Tran, The Guardian, June 12, 2016. Article: by Richard Schmitt, LA Times, May 16, 2007. Resources Press Gaggle Transcript: , June 15, 2018 Hearing Transcript: , December 13, 2017 Hearing Transcript: , June 8, 2017 Report: Statement Transcript: , May 9, 2017 Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , C-SPAN, February 27, 2019. Sound Clips: 33:31 Michael Cohen: You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it. 33:44 Michael Cohen: To be clear, Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project. 39:21 Michael Cohen: Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation, only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say this campaign was going to be greatest infomercial in political history. He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign, for him, was always a marketing opportunity. 43:50 Michael Cohen: Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw man to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned off at an art Hampton’s event. The objective was to ensure that this portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. 48:50 Michael Cohen: When I say con man, I'm talking about a man who declares himself brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores. 53:09 Michael Cohen: Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. 55:31 Michael Cohen: And by coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal scurrilous attacks by the president and his lawyer trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel. 56:30 Michael Cohen: And I hope this committee and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle make it clear that as a nation, we should not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before Congress and attacks on family are out of bounds and not acceptable. 2:10:30 Michael Cohen: And when Mr. Trump turned around early in the campaign and said, I can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, I want to be very clear. He's not joking. He's telling you the truth. You don't know him. I do. I sat next to this man for 10 years and I watched his back. 2:11:13 Michael Cohen: And when he goes on Twitter and he starts bringing in my in-laws, my parents, my wife, what does he think is going to happen? He's causing... He's sending out the same message that he can do whatever he wants. This is his country. He's becoming an autocrat and hopefully something bad will happen to me or my children and my wife so that I will not be here and testify. That's what his hope was. To intimidate me. 2:11:46 Rep. Jim Cooper (TN): Have you ever seen Mr. Trump personally threaten people with physical harm? Michael Cohen: No. He would use others. 2:12:00 Michael Cohen: Everybody’s job at the Trump organization is to protect Mr. Trump 2:12:07 Michael Cohen: Every day. Most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something, and that became the norm, and that's exactly what's happening right now in, in this country. That's exactly what's happening here in government. 4:10:30 Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): Mr Cohen, why do you feel or believe that the president is repeatedly attacking you? You are stating that you feel intimidated asking us to protect you following your cooperation with law enforcement. Michael Cohen: When you have access to 60 plus million people that follow you on social media and you have the ability within which to spark some action by individuals that follow and follow him and from his own words that he can walk down Fifth Avenue, shoot someone and get away with it. It's never comfortable when the President of the United States… Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): What do you think he can do to you? Michael Cohen: A lot. And it's not just him, it's those people that follow him in his rhetoric. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): What is a lot? Michael Cohen: I don't know. I don't walk with my wife. If we go to a restaurant or we go somewhere, I don't walk with my children. I make them go before me because I have fear and it's the same fear that I had before when he initially decided to drop that tweet in my cell phone. I receive some, and I'm sure you, you'll understand. I received some tweets. I received some Facebook messenger, all sorts of social media attacks upon me, whether it's the private direct message that I've had to turn over to secret service because they are the most vile, disgusting statements that anyone can ever receive. And when it starts to affect your children, that's when it really affects you. Interview: , Fox News, January 12, 2019. Sound Clip: 15:00 President Donald Trump: Look, I was a client of his, and you know, you're supposed to have lawyer-client privilege, but it doesn't matter because I'm a very honest person, frankly, but he's in trouble on some loans and fraud and taxi cabs and stuff that I know nothing about and in order to get a sentence reduced, he says, "I have an idea, I'll give you some information on the president." Well, there is no information, but he should give information, maybe on his father in law because that's the one that people want to look at because where does that money? That's the money in the family. And I guess he didn't want to talk about his father in law. He's trying to get his sentence reduced. Press Conference: , C-SPAN, November 29, 2018. Sound Clip: 1:00 President Donald Trump: He was convicted of various things unrelated to us. He was given a fairly long jail sentence and he’s a weak person. And by being weak, unlike other people that you watch - he is a weak person. And what he’s trying to do is get a reduced sentence. So he’s lying about a project that everybody knew about. Interview: , YouTube, August 23, 2018. Sound Clips: Ainsley Earhardt:What grade do you give yourself so far? President Donald Trump: So, I give myself an A+. Ainsley Earhardt: Will you fire Sessions? President Donald Trump: I'll tell you what, as I've said, I wanted to stay uninvolved, but when everybody sees what's going on in the Justice Department - I put "Justice" now in quotes - It's a very, very sad day. Jeff Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn't have done, or he should have told me. Even my enemies say that Jeff sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself and then you wouldn't have put him in. He took the job and then he said, "I'm going to recuse myself." I said, "What kind of a man is this?" And by the way, he was on the campaign and you know, the only reason I gave him the job, because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter. President Donald Trump: He makes a better deal when he uses me, like everybody else, and one of the reasons I respect Paul Manafort so much is he went through that trial... You know, they make up stories. People make up stories. This whole thing about flipping, they call it, I know all about flipping. For 30, 40 years, I've been watching flippers. Everything's wonderful, and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is, or as high as you can go. It almost ought to be outlawed. It's not fair. Press Briefing: , C-SPAN, August 17, 2018. Sound Clip: President Donald Trump: I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what, he happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort. News Report: , CNN, YouTube, June 17, 2018. 9:30 Jake Tapper: How do you respond to critics who say you discussing it on TV, you discussing it with the New York Daily News, President Trump tweeting, that you're sending a signal to defendants in a criminal prosecution that a pardon is out there. It might be on its way. Some people think that this is the president and you suggesting that - signaling really, - don't cooperate with prosecutors because the pardon is there if you'll just hold on. Rudy Giuliani: Jake, I don't think that's the interpretation. It's certainly not intended that way. What it should be... I'll tell you what I clearly mean. What I mean is you're not going to get a pardon just because you're involved in this investigation. You probably have a higher burden if you're involved in this investigation as compared to the others who get pardons but you're certainly not excluded from it if, in fact, the president and his advisors, not me, come to the conclusion that you've been treated unfairly. Press Conference: , CNBC, June 15, 2018. Sound Clips: 6:30 Reporter: So there’s some high-profile court cases going on. You’ve got a former campaign manager, your former lawyer. They’re all dealing with legal troubles. Are you paying close attention — President Donald Trump: Well, I feel badly about a lot of them, because I think a lot of it is very unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back 12 years. Like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But I feel so — I tell you, I feel a little badly about it. They went back 12 years to get things that he did 12 years ago? 8:50 Reporter: Is he still your lawyer? President Donald Trump: No, he’s not my lawyer anymore. But I always liked Michael, and he’s a good person. And I think he’s been — Reporter: Are you worried he will cooperate? President Donald Trump: Excuse me, do you mind if I talk? Reporter: I just want to know if you’re worried — President Donald Trump: You’re asking me a question; I’m trying to ask it. Reporter: I just want to know if you’re worried if he’s going to cooperate with federal investigators. President Donald Trump: No, I’m not worried because I did nothing wrong. White House Briefing: , YouTube, April 9, 2018. Sound Clips: President Donald Trump: So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man. And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt. I’ve been saying it for a long time. I’ve wanted to keep it down. We’ve given, I believe, over a million pages’ worth of documents to the Special Counsel. They continue to just go forward. And here we are talking about Syria and we’re talking about a lot of serious things. We’re the greatest fighting force ever. And I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. President Donald Trump: The Attorney General made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself. Or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different Attorney General in. So he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country. But you’ll figure that out. Hearing: , Senate Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, November 1, 2017. Sound Clips: 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. Hearing: , Senate Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, June 8, 2017. Witness: James Comey - Former FBI Director Sound Clips: 48:20 Senator James Risch (ID): You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There’s 28 words there that are in quotes, and it says, quote, ‘‘I hope’’—this is the President speaking—‘‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’’Now those are his exact words, is that correct? James Comey:: Correct. Senator RISCH: And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes? Director COMEY: Correct. Senator RISCH: Okay. Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go? Director COMEY: Not in his words, no. Senator RISCH: He did not order you to let it go? Director COMEY: Again, those words are not an order. Senator RISCH: No. He said, ‘‘I hope.’’ Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses. And of course you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome? Director COMEY: I don’t know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction. Senator RISCH: Right. Director COMEY: I mean, this is the President of the United States with me alone, saying, ‘‘I hope’’ this. I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it. 54:18 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA): You described two phone calls that you re- ceived from President Trump, one on March 30 and one on April 11, where he, quote, ‘‘described the Russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability,’’ end quote, as President and asked you, quote, ‘‘to lift the cloud,’’ end quote. How did you interpret that? And what did you believe he wanted you to do? Director COMEY: I interpreted that as he was frustrated that the Russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy, I think he meant of the Executive Branch, but in the public square in general, and it was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. But what he asked me was actually narrower than that. So I think what he meant by the cloud, and again I could be wrong, but what I think he meant by the cloud was the entire investigation is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on the things I want to focus on. The ask was to get it out that I, the President, am not personally under investigation. 1:17:17 Sen. Susan Collins (ME): And was the President under investigation at the time of your dismissal on May 9th? James Comey: No. 1:30:15 James Comey: On March the 30th, and I think again on—I think on April 11th as well, I told him we’re not investigating him personally. That was true. 1:39:10 Sen. Angus King (ME): And in his press conference on May 18th, the President was asked whether he had urged you to shut down the investigation into Michael Flynn. The President responded, quote, ‘‘No, no. Next question.’’ Is that an accurate statement? James Comey: I don’t believe it is. 1:48:15 James Comey: I think there’s a big difference in kicking superior officers out of the Oval Office, looking the FBI Director in the eye, and saying, ‘‘I hope you’ll let this go.’’ I think if our—if the agents, as good as they are, heard the President of the United States did that there’s a real risk of a chilling effect on their work. 2:21:35 Sen. Jack Reed (RI): You interpret the discussion with the President about Flynn as a direction to stop the investigation. Is that correct? James Comey: Yes. 2:24:25 James Comey: I know I was fired because something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that. I can’t go farther than that. 2:26:00 James Comey: There’s no doubt that it’s a fair judgment, it’s my judgment, that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change—or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. Interview: , NBC News, May 11, 2017. Sound Clips: President Donald Trump: Look, he's a show boat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil less than a year ago. It hasn't recovered from that. Lester Holt: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosensteinn. President Donald Trump: Right. Lester Holt: Did you ask for recommendation? President Donald Trump: What I did is I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not... Lester Holt: You had made the decision before they came... President Donald Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There's no good time to do it, by the way. Lester Holt: Because in your letter, you said, I accepted their recommendation, so you had already made the decision? President Donald Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. President Donald Trump: And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. Lester Holt: Let me ask you about your termination letter to Mr. Comey. You write, "I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation." Why did you put that in there? President Donald Trump: Because he told me that, I mean he told me... Lester Holt: He told you you weren't under investigation with regard to the Russian investigation? President Donald Trump: I've heard that from others. I think... Lester Holt: Was it in a phone call? Did you meet face to face? President Donald Trump: I had a dinner with him. He wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. We had a very nice dinner at the White House. Lester Holt: He asked for the dinner? President Donald Trump: The dinner was arranged, I think he has for the dinner and he wanted to stay on as the FBI head and I said, I'll consider, we'll see what happens. But we had a very nice dinner and at that time he told me, you are not under investigation. Which I knew anyway. Lester Holt: That was one meeting. What were the other two? President Donald Trump: First of all, when you're under investigation, you're giving all sorts of documents and everything. I knew I wasn't under and I heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level, that I wasn't. Number one. Then during the phone call, he said it and then during another phone call. He said it. So he said it once at dinner and then he said it twice doing phone calls. Lester Holt: Did you call him? President Donald Trump: In one case I called him. In one case he called me. Lester Holt: And did you ask him I under investigation? President Donald Trump: I actually asked him, yes. I said, if it's possible when you let me know, am I under investigation? He said, "You are not under investigation." Lester Holt: But he's, he's given sworn testimony that there was an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with the Russian government. You were the centerpiece of the Trump campaign, so was he being truthful when he said that you weren't under investigation? President Donald Trump: Well, I know one thing. I know that I'm not under investigation. Me. Personally. I'm not talking about campaigns. I'm not talking about anything else. I'm not under investigation. President Donald Trump: He's not my man or not my man. I didn't appoint him. He was appointed long before me. President Donald Trump: There was no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians. The other thing is the Russians did not affect the vote and everybody seems to think that. Lester Holt: But when you put out tweets, it's a total hoax. It's a taxpayer's charade. And you're looking for a new FBI director. Are you not sending that person a message to lay off? President Donald Trump: No, I'm not doing that. I think that we have to get back to work, but I want to find out, I want to get to the bottom. If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about. White House Press Briefing: , White House, May 10, 2017. Oversight Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, May 3, 2017. Witness: James Comey - FBI Director Sound Clips: 57:19 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): In October, the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. You sent a letter informing the Senate and House that you are reviewing additional emails. It could be relevant to this, but both of those cases are open, but you're still only commented on one. FBI Director James Comey: I commented, as I explained earlier on October 28th in a letter that I sent to the chair and rankings of the oversight committees that we were taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation because I had testified under oath repeatedly that we were done, that we were finished there. With respect to the Russia investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it. And then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is - same thing with the Clinton investigation - that we are investigating and I would expect we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. 1:47:32 Sen. Al Franken (MN): Any investigation into whether the Trump campaign or Trump operation colluded with Russian operatives would require a full appreciation of the president's financial dealings. Director Comey, would president Trump's tax returns be material to such an investigation? FBI Director James Comey: That's not something, Senator, I'm going to answer. Sen. Al Franken (MN): Does the investigation have access to President Trump's tax returns? FBI Director James Comey: I have to give you the same answer. Again, I hope people don't over interpret my answers, but I just don't want to start talking about anything...What we're looking at and how. 2:00:15 FBI Director James Comey: The current investigation with respect to Russia, we've confirmed it. The Department of Justice authorized me to confirm that exists. We're not going to say another word about it until we're done. 2:11:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): You do confirm that there is still an ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign and their conduct with regard to Russian efforts to undermine our elections? FBI Director James Comey: We're conducting an investigation to understand whether there was any coordination between the Russian efforts and anybody associated with the Trump campaign. Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So since you've already confirmed that such an investigation is ongoing, can you tell us more about what constitutes that investigation? FBI Director James Comey: No. 2:25:40 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You have confirmed, I believe that the FBI is investigating potential ties between Trump associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, correct? FBI Director James Comey:Yes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): And you have not, to my knowledge, ruled out anyone in the Trump campaign as potentially a target of that criminal investigation. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on. I've briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are. And so I, I can't, I can't go beyond that in this setting. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Have you ruled out anyone in the campaign that you can disclose? FBI Director James Comey: I don't feel comfortable answering that senator, because I think it puts me on a slope to talking about who we're investigating. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Have you ruled out the president United States? FBI Director James Comey: I don't want people to over-interpret this answer. I'm not going to comment on anyone in particular because that puts me down a slope of... Cause if I say no to that, then I have to answer succeeding questions. So what we've done is brief the chair and ranking on who the U.S. persons are that we've opened investigations on. And that's, that's as far as we're going to go with this point. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): But as a former prosecutor, you know that when there's an investigation into several potentially culpable individuals, the evidence from those individuals and the investigation can lead to others. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: Correct. We're always open minded about, and we follow the evidence wherever it takes us. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): So potentially the President of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our election. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: I just worry... I don't want to answer that because it seems to be unfair speculation. We will follow the evidence. We'll try and find as much as we can and we'll follow the evidence where it leads. Interview: , Fox Business Network, YouTube, April 12, 2017. Sound Clip: 5:30 Maria Bartiromo: Was it a mistake not to ask Jim Comey to step down from the FBI at the outside of your presidency, is it too late now to ask him to step down? President Donald Trump: No, it's not too late. But I have confidence at him, we'll see what happens. It's going to be interesting Interview: , YouTube, January 15, 2017. Sound Clip: 8:48 John Dickerson: It was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response? Vice President-elect Mike Pence: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, January 10, 2017. Clip: Sound Clips: Sen. Al Franken (MN): If there is any evidence that any one affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL): Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn't have not have communications with the Russians and I'm unable to comment on it. Campaign Speech clip: , Iowa Campaign Rally, CNN, January 23, 2016. Sound Clips: Donald Trump: I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters. Okay? It’s like, incredible. Interview: , Steve Holland, Reuters, October 25, 2016. National Security Address: , C-SPAN, November 19, 2015. Sound Clip: Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Video: , James Comey Testifying before Senate Judiciary Committee, YouTube, May 15, 2007. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD195: Yemen

29 april 2019 | 152 min

Yemen: Most of us don't know where that is but we Americans have been participating in a war there since 2015. In a surprise move, the 116th Congress recently put a resolution on President Trump's desk that would LIMIT our participation in that war. In this episode, learn about our recent history in Yemen: Why are we involved? When did our involvement start? What do we want from Yemen? And why is Congress suddenly pursuing a change in policy? In the second half of the episode, Jen admits defeat in a project she's been working on and Husband Joe joins Jen for the thank yous. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD167: CD131: CD102: Additional Reading Article: , NOAA, April 19, 2019. Article: by Ryan Browne, CNN, April 1, 2019. Article: by Joyce Lee and Dalton Bennett, The Washington Post, April 1, 2019. Article: , BBC News, March 7, 2019. Article: by Andrew Kennedy, The Defense Post, January 7, 2019. Article: by Alex Emmons, The Intercept, January 7, 2019. Report: by Jeff Abramson, Arms Control Association, January/February 2019. Article: by Derek Watkins and Declan Walsh, The New York Times, December 27, 2018. Article: by David D. Kirkpatrick, Ben Hubbard, Mark Landler, and Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times, December 8, 2018. Report: by John Bowden, The Hill, December 5, 2018. Article: by Maggie Michael and Maad al-Zikry, Military Times, November 14, 2018. Article: by Scott Nover, The Atlantic, October 12, 2018. Report: , National Weather Service, October 10, 2018. Article: , Aljazeera, September 3, 2018. Article: by Julian Lee, Bloomberg, July 26, 2018. Report: , The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, March 29, 2018. Article: , Aljazeera, December 10, 2017. Article: by Maggie Michael, AP News, June 22, 2017. Report: , Human Rights Watch, June 22, 2017. Article: by Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016. Report: by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service, February 11, 2015. Article: by Casey L. Coombs and Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, January 22, 2015. Report: , Aljazeera, July 30, 2014. Article: by MAREX, Feburary 6, 2014. Report: , Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2013. Article: by Reuters, The New York Times, December 7, 2011. Article: by Marwa Rashad, Reuters, November 23, 2011. Article: by Kareem Fahim and Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, November 23, 2011. Article: by Tom Finn, The Guardian, September 23, 2011. Article: , BBC News, June 23, 2011. Article: by Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, April 26, 2011. Article: by Faud Rajeh, The New York Times, February 16, 2011. Article: by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, December 17, 2010. Article: by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 4, 2010. Article: by Mona El-Naggar and Robert F. Worth, The New York Times, November 3, 2010. Article: by Subir Ghosh, Digital Journal, October 11, 2010. Roundtable Summary: , MENAP, Chatham House, February 18, 2010. Article: by Mark Landler, The New York Times, January 27, 2010. Article: by John F. Burns, The New York Times, January 1, 2010. Resources Congress.gov: Govtrack: IMF.org: Middle East Institute: Open Knowledge Repository: US Dept. of Treasury: Sound Clip Sources House Proceedings: , 116th Congress, April 4, 2019. Sound Clips: 1:06:30 Rep. Michael McCaul (TX):This resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ‘‘engagement in hostilities.’’ This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world. 1:14:30 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA): Yes, Madam Speaker, I voted against that 2001 resolution, because I knew it was open-ended and would set the stage for endless wars. It was a blank check. We see this once again today in Yemen. We must repeal this 2001 blank check for endless wars. Over the past 18 years, we have seen the executive branch use this AUMF time and time again. It is a blank check to wage war without congressional oversight. 1:21:30 Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): My motivation for this bill is very simple. I don’t want to see 14 million Yemenis starve to death. That is what Martin Griffith had said at the U.N., that if the Saudis don’t stop their blockade and let food and medicine in, within 6 months we will see one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world. Senate Floor Proceedings: , 115th Congress, 2nd Session, December 12, 2018. Sound Clips: 7:09:00 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us—conservatives and progressives—is that this war has not been authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to send our men and women into war—Congress, not the President. The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave the power to declare war to Congress—the branch most accountable to the people—not to the President, who is often isolated from the reality of what is taking place in our communities. The truth is—and Democratic and Republican Presidents are responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible—that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war. I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility. 7:14:45 Sen. Bob Corker (TN): I have concerns about what this may mean as we set a precedent about refueling and intelligence activities being considered hostilities. I am concerned about that. I think the Senator knows we have operations throughout Northern Africa, where we are working with other governments on intelligence to counter terrorism. We are doing refueling activists in Northern Africa now, and it concerns me—he knows I have concerns—that if we use this vehicle, then we may have 30 or 40 instances where this vehicle might be used to do something that really should not be dealt with by the War Powers Act. 7:49:06 Sen. Todd Young (IN): We don’t have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. 7:58:30 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don’t see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. 8:01:00 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in that part of the world. We don’t have that many friends. We can’t afford to lose any of them. 8:04:30 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): It is important to note some-thing that we take for granted in the region—this now long-term detente that has existed between the Gulf States and Israel, which did not used to be something you could rely on. In fact, one of the most serious foreign policy debates this Senate ever had was on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in the 1980s. The objection then was that by empowering Saudi Arabia, you were hurting Israel and Israeli security. No one would make that argument today because Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in trying to figure out a way to calm the tensions in the region and, of course, provide some balance in the region, with the Iranian regime on the other side continuing to this day to use inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric about the future of Israel. So this is an important partnership, and I have no interest in blowing it up. I have no interest in walking away from it. But you are not obligated to follow your friend into every misadventure they propose. When your buddy jumps into a pool of man-eating sharks, you don’t have to jump with him. There is a point at which you say enough is enough. 8:06:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): Muhammad bin Salman, who is the Crown Prince, who is the effective leader of the country, has steered the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia off the rails. Folks seem to have noticed when he started rounding up his political opponents and killing one of them in a consulate in Turkey, but this has been ongoing. Look back to the kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister, the blockade of Qatar without any heads-up to the United States, the wholesale imprisonment of hundreds of his family members until there was a payoff, the size of which was big enough to let some of them out. This is a foreign policy that is no longer in the best interests of the United States and cannot be papered over by a handful of domestic policy reforms that are, in fact, intended to try to distract us from the aggressive nature of the Saudis’ foreign policy in the region. 8:08:15 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): I am appreciative that many of my colleagues are willing to stand up for this resolution today to end the war in Yemen. I wish that it weren’t because of the death of one journalist, because there have been tens of thousands who have died inside Yemen, and their lives are just as important and just as worthwhile as Jamal Khashoggi’s life was, as tragic as that was. But there is a connection between the two, which is why I have actually argued that this resolution is in some way, shape, or form a response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi, for those who are primarily concerned with that atrocity. Here is how I link the two: What the Saudis did for 2 weeks was lie to us, right? In the most bald-faced way possible. They told us that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate, that he had gotten out of there alive, that they didn’t know what happened, when of course they knew the entire time that they had killed him, that they had murdered him, that they had dismembered his body. We now know that the Crown Prince had multiple contacts all throughout the day with the team of operatives who did it. Yet they thought we were so dumb or so weak— or some combination of the two—that they could just lie to us about it. That was an eye-opener for a lot of people here who were long-term supporters of the Saudi relationship because they knew that we had trouble. They knew that sometimes our interests didn’t align, but they thought that the most important thing allies did with each other was tell the truth, especially when the truth was so easy to discover outside of your bilateral relationship. Then, all of a sudden, the Saudis lied to us for 2 weeks—for 2 weeks—and then finally came around to telling the truth because everybody knew that they weren’t. That made a lot of people here think, well, wait a second—maybe the Saudis haven’t been telling us the truth about what they have been doing inside Yemen. A lot of my friends have been supporting the bombing campaign in Yemen. Why? Because the Saudis said: We are hitting these civilians by accident. Those water treatment plants that have been blowing up—we didn’t mean to hit them. That cholera treatment facility inside the humanitarian compound—that was just a bomb that went into the wrong place, or, we thought there were some bad guys in it. It didn’t turn out that there were. It turns out the Saudis weren’t telling us the truth about what they were doing in Yemen. They were hitting civilian targets on purpose. They did have an intentional campaign of trying to create misery. I am not saying that every single one of those school buses or those hospitals or those churches or weddings was an attempt to kill civilians and civilians only, but we have been in that targeting center long enough to know—to know—that they have known for a long time what they have been doing: hitting a lot of people who have nothing to do with the attacks against Saudi Arabia. Maybe if the Saudis were willing to lie to us about what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, they haven’t been straight with us as to what is happening inside Yemen, because if the United States is being used to intentionally hit civilians, then we are complicit in war crimes. And I hate to tell my colleagues that is essentially what the United Nations found in their most recent report on the Saudi bombing campaign. They were careful about their words, but they came to the conclusion that it was likely that the Saudi conduct inside Yemen would amount to war crimes under international law. If it is likely that our ally is perpetuating war crimes in Yemen, then we cannot be a part of that. The United States cannot be part of a bombing campaign that may be—probably is— intentionally making life miserable for the people inside of that country. 8:14:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): There is no relationship in which we are the junior partner—certainly not with Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of the last several years and in particular the last several months, that sends a signal to lots of other countries that they can do the same thing—that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no consequences; that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and suffer no consequences. This is not just a message about the Saudi relationship; this is a message about how the United States is going to interact with lots of other junior partners around the world as well. Saudi Arabia needs us a lot more than we need them, and we need to remind folks of that over and over again. Spare me this nonsense that they are going to go start buying Russian jets or Chinese military hardware. If you think those countries can protect you better than the United States, take a chance. You think the Saudis are really going to stop selling oil to the United States? You think they are going to walk away from their primary bread winner just because we say that we don’t want to be engaged in this particular military campaign? I am willing to take that chance. We are the major partner in this relationship, and it is time that we start acting like it. If this administration isn’t going to act like it, then this Congress has to act like it. 8:44:15 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Many of my colleagues will argue—in fact some of them have argued just within the last few minutes—that we are somehow not involved in a war in Yemen. My distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said that we are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. Let’s peel that back for a minute. Let’s figure out what that means. I am not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here. Maybe in a very technical sense—or under a definition of warfare or military action that has long since been rendered out- dated—we are not involved in that, but we are involved in a war. We are co-belligerents. The minute we start identifying targets or, as Secretary James Mattis put it about a year ago, in December 2017, the minute we are involved in the decisions involving making sure that they know the right stuff to hit, that is involvement in a war, and that is pretty direct. The minute we send up U.S. military aircraft to provide midair refueling assistance for Saudi jets en route to bombing missions, to combat missions on the ground in Yemen, that is our direct involvement in war. 8:48:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Increasingly these days, our wars are high-tech. Very often, our wars involve cyber activities. They involve reconnaissance, surveillance, target selection, midair refueling. It is hard—in many cases, impossible—to fight a war without those things. That is what war is. Many of my colleagues, in arguing that we are not involved in hostilities, rely on a memorandum that is internal within the executive branch of the U.S. Government that was issued in 1976 that provides a very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of the word ‘‘hostilities.’’ It defines ‘‘hostilities’’ in a way that might have been relevant, that might have been accurate, perhaps, in the mid-19th century, but we no longer live in a world in which you have a war as understood by two competing countries that are lined up on opposite sides of a battlefield and engaged in direct exchanges of fire, one against another, at relatively short range. War encompasses a lot more than that. War certainly encompasses midair refueling, target selection, surveillance, and reconnaissance of the sort we are undertaking in Yemen. Moreover, separate and apart from this very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of ‘‘hostilities’’ as deter- mined by this internal executive branch document from 1976 that contains the outdated definition, we our- selves, under the War Powers Act, don’t have to technically be involved in hostilities. It is triggered so long as we ourselves are sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation when those armed forces of another nation are themselves involved in hostilities. I am speaking, of course, in reference to the War Powers Act’s pro- visions codified at 50 USC 1547(c). For our purposes here, it is important to keep in mind what that provisions reads: ‘‘For purposes of this chapter [under the War Powers Act], the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.’’ In what sense, on what level, on what planet are we not involved in the commanding, in the coordination, in the participation, in the movement of or in the accompaniment of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the civil war in Yemen? 9:57:15 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense with my colleague Senator JACK REED of Rhode Island, along with many of our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD’s involvement, apparently without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to provide refueling sup- port to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately documented reimbursements for aerial re- fueling support provided by the United States. Eight months later—just days ago— the Department of Defense responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing it since March of 2015. Video: , The Guardian, October 12, 2018. Donald Trump: I would not be in favor of stopping from spending $110 billion, which is an all-time record, and letting Russia have that money, and letting China have that money. Because all their going to do is say, that's okay, we don't have to buy it from Boeing, we don't have to buy it from Lockheed, we don't have to buy it from Ratheon and all these great companies. We'll buy it from Russia and we'll buy it from China. So what good does that do us? Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Wess Mitchell: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Sound Clips: 18:00 David Satterfield: We all agree, as does the Congress, that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unacceptable. Last month, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates provided $1 billion to Yemen's humanitarian response appeal, and this complements the US government pledge of $87 million and more than $854 million contributed since beginning of fiscal year 2017. 19:45 Wess Mitchell: Turkey is a 66 year member of the NATO alliance and member of the defeat ISIS coalition. It has suffered more casualties from terrorism than any other ally and hosts 3.5 million Syrian refugees. It supports the coalition through the use of Incirlik air base through its commitment of Turkish military forces against Isis on the ground in (Dibick? al-Bab?) And through close intelligence cooperation with the United States and other allies. Turkey has publicly committed to a political resolution in Syria that accords with UN Security Council. Resolution 2254. Turkey has a vested strategic interest in checking the spread of Iranian influence and in having a safe and stable border with Syria. Despite these shared interests, Turkey lately has increased its engagement with Russia and Iran. Ankara has sought to assure us that it sees this cooperation as a necessary stepping stone towards progress in the Geneva process, but the ease with which Turkey brokered arrangements with the Russian military to facilitate the launch of its Operation Olive Branch in Afrin district, arrangements to which America was not privy, is gravely concerning. Ankara claims to have agreed to purchase, to, to purchase the Russian S 400 missile system, which could potentially lead to sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA and adversely impact Turkey's participation in the F-35 program. It is in the American national interest to see Turkey remains strategically and politically aligned with the west. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, April 17, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Jenkins: Deputy Assistant Administrator at USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian Assistance David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Robert Karem: Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Nominee and former Middle East Adviser to Vice President Cheney Sound Clips: 9:30 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Well, Yemen has always faced significant socioeconomic challenges. A civil war, which began with the Houthis armed takeover of much of the country in 2014 and their overthrow of Yemen's legitimate government in January 2015, has plunged the country into humanitarian crisis. 17:25 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our first witness is acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield. Ambassador Satterfield is one of the most distinguished, one of our most distinguished diplomats. He most recently served as director general, the multinational force and observers in the Sinai peninsula and previously served as US Abassador to Lebanon. 17:45 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our second witness is Robert Jenkins, who serves as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for USA ID Bureau for Democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance. Mr. Jenkins, recently mark 20 years at USAID and previously served as the Director of Office of Transition Initiatives. 18:15 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our third witness is Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Robert Kerem. Prior to his Senate confirmation last year, Mr. Karem served as National Security of Staff of Vice President Cheney and then as National Security Advisor to the House, majority leader's Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy. 20:15 David Satterfield: US military support serves a clear and strategic purpose to reinforce Saudi and Mrid self defense in the face of intensifying Houthi and Iranian enabled threats and to expand the capability of our Gulf partners to push back against Iran's regionally destabilizing actions. This support in turn provides the United States access and influence to help press for a political solution to the conflict. Should we curtail US military support? The Saudis could well pursue defense relationships with countries that have no interest in either ending the humanitarian crisis, minimizing civilian casualties or assisting and facilitating progress towards a political solution. Critical US access to support for our own campaign against violent extremists could be placed in jeopardy. 30:00 Robert Karem: Conflict in Yemen affects regional security across the Middle East, uh, and threatens US national security interests, including the free flow of commerce and the Red Sea. Just this month, the Houthi, his attack to Saudi oil tanker and the Red Sea threatening commercial shipping and freedom of navigation and the world's fourth busiest maritime choke point, the Bab el Mandeb. 32:00 Robert Karem: The Defense Department is currently engaged in two lines of effort in Yemen. Our first line of effort and our priority is the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen, two terrorist organizations that directly threaten the United States, our allies and our partners. To combat AQIP, AQAP, and ISIS, US forces in coordination with the UN recognized government of Yemen are supporting our regional key counter terrorism partners in ongoing operations to disrupt and degrade their ability to coordinate, plot and recruit for external terrorist operations. Additionally, US military forces are conducting airstrikes against AQAP and ISIS in Yemen pursuant to the 2001 a authorization for the use of military force to disrupt and destroy terrorist network networks. Our second line of effort is the provision of limited noncombat support to the Saudi led coalition in support of the UN recognized government of Yemen. The support began in 2015 under President Obama and in 2017 president Trump reaffirmed America's commitment to our partners in these efforts. Fewer than 50 US military personnel work in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi led coalition advising and assisting with the defense of Saudi territory, sharing intelligence and providing logistical support, including aerial refueling. 35:45 Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): Mr. Karem. I'm gonna Start with you. Um, in regards to the US military assistance that we give to the kingdom, you said that is to embolden their capacity and to reduce noncombatant casualties. Last March, the CENTCOM commander General Votel stated that the United States government does not track the end results of the coalition missions. It refills and supports with targeting assistance. So my question to you is, how do you determine that we are effectively reducing the non combatant casualties if we don't in fact track the results of the kingdoms military actions? Robert Karem: Senator, thank you. Um, it's correct that we do not monitor and track all of the Saudi aircraft, um, uh, a loft over Yemen. Uh, we have limited personnel and assets in order to do that. Uh, and CENTCOM's focus is obviously been on our own operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand that, but my question is, our stated mission is to reduce noncombat and casualties. If we don't track, how do we determine that? Robert Karem: So I think one of our stated missions is precisely that. Um, there are multiple ways that I think we do have insight into, uh, Saudi, uh, targeting behavior. Um, we have helped them with their processes. Um, we have seen them implement a no strike list. Um, and we have seen their, their, their uh, capabilities, uh, improved. So the information is based upon what the Saudis tell you, how they're conducting the mission rather than the after impact of the mission. I think our military officers who are resident in Saudi Arabia are seeing how the Saudis approach, uh, this, this effort that took getting effort. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): But you know, obviously the proof is in the results and we don't know whether the results are, there are not fair statement. Robert Karem: I think we do see a difference in how the Saudis have operated in Yemen, how they operate. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand how they operate but we don't know whether in fact that's been effective. The United Nations Security Council panel of experts on Yemen concluded in recent reports that the cumulative effect of these airstrikes on civilian infrastructure demonstrates that even with precaution, cautionary measures were taken, they were largely inadequate and ineffective. Do you have any information that disagrees with that assessment? Robert Karem: Senator, I think the assessment of, uh, our central command is that the Saudi, uh, and Emirati targeting efforts, uh, have improved, um, uh, with the steps that they've taken. We do not have perfect understanding because we're not using all of our assets to monitor their aircraft, but we do get reporting from the ground on what taking place inside Yemen. 40:15 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): Ambassador Satterfield. I guess some people when they think about our strategy might question the idea of our strategy. You know, if your son was shooting off his pistol in the back yard and doing it indiscriminately and endangering the neighbors, would you give hmi more bullets or less? And we see the Saudis acting in an indiscriminate manner. They've bombed a funeral processions, they've killed a lot of civilians. And so our strategy is to give them more bombs, not less. And we say, well, if we don't give him the bomb, somebody else will. And that's sort of this global strategy, uh, that many in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus have. We have to, we have to always be involved. We always have to provide weapons or someone else will and they'll act even worse. But there's a, I guess a lot of examples that doesn't seem to be improving their behavior. Um, you could argue it's marginally better since we've been giving them more weapons, but it seems the opposite of logic. You would think you would give people less where you might withhold aid or withhold a assistance to the Saudis to get them to behave. But we do sort of the opposite. We give them more aid. What would your response be to that? David Satterfield: Senator, when I noted in my remarks that progress had been made on this issue of targeting, minimizing or mitigating civilian casualties, that phrase was carefully chosen into elaborate further on, uh, my colleagues remarks, uh, Robert Karem. We do work with the Saudis and have, particularly over the last six to nine months worked intensively on the types of munitions the Saudis are using, how they're using, how to discriminate target sets, how to assure through increased loiter time by aircraft that the targets sought are indeed clear of collateral or civilian damage. This is new. This is not the type of interaction… Sen. Rand Paul (KY): And yet the overall situation in Yemen is a, is a disaster. David Satterfield: The overall situation is extremely bad. Senator. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): I guess that's really my question. We had to rethink...And I think from a common sense point of view, a lot of people would question giving people who misbehave more weapons instead of giving them less on another question, which I think is a broad question about, you know, what we're doing in the Middle East in general. Um, you admitted that there's not really a military solution in Yemen. Most people say it's going to be a political solution. The Houthis will still remain. We're not going to have Hiroshima. We're not going to have unconditional surrender and the good guys win and the bad guys are vanquished. Same with Syria. Most people have said for years, both the Obama administration and this administration, probably even the Bush administration, the situation will probably be a political solution. They will no longer, it's not going to be complete vanquished meant of the enemy. We're also saying that in Afghanistan, and I guess my point as I think about that is I think about the recruiter at the station in Omaha, Nebraska, trying to get somebody to sign up for the military and saying, please join. We're going to send you to three different wars where there is no military solution. We're hoping to make it maybe a little bit better. I think back to Vietnam. Oh, we're going to take one more village. If we take one more village, they're going to negotiate and we get a little better negotiation. I just can't see sending our young men and women to die for that for one more village. You know the Taliban 40% in Afghanistan. Where are we going to get when they get to 30% don't negotiate and when we it, it'll be, it'll have been worth it for the people who have to go in and die and take those villages. I don't think it's one more life. I don't think it's worth one more life. The war in Yemen is not hard. We talk all about the Iranians have launched hundreds of missiles. Well, yeah, and the Saudis have launched 16,000 attacks. Who started it? It's a little bit murky back and forth. The, the Houthis may have started taking over their government, but that was a civil war. Now we're involved in who are the good guys of the Saudis, the good guys or the others, the bad guys. Thousands of civilians are dying. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation. I think we need to rethink whether or not military intervention supplying the Saudis with weapons, whether all of this makes any sense at all or whether we've made the situation worse. I mean, humanitarian crisis, we're talking about, oh, we're going to give my, the Saudis are giving them money and I'm like, okay, so we dropped, we bomb the crap out of them in this audience. Give them $1 billion. Maybe we could bomb last maybe part of the humanitarian answers, supplying less weapons to a war. There's a huge arms race going on. Why do the Iranians do what they do? They're evil. Or maybe they're responding to the Saudis who responded first, who started it? Where did the arms race start? But we sell $300 billion a weapons to Saudi Arabia. What are the Iranians going to do? They react. It's action and reaction throughout the Middle East. And so we paint the Iranians as the, you know, these evil monsters. And we just have to correct evil monster. But the world's a much more complicated place back and forth. And I, all I would ask is that we try to get outside our mindset that we, uh, what we're doing is working because I think what we're doing hasn't worked, and we've made a lot of things worse. And we're partly responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. 48:30 David Satterfield: The political picture on the ground in Yemen has changed radically with the death, the killing of a Ali Abdullah Saleh, uh, with the fragmentation of the General People's Congress. All of that, while tragic in many of its dimensions, has provided a certain reshuffling of the deck that may, we hope, allow the United Nations to be more effective in its efforts. 1:05:45 Sen. Todd Young (IN): Approximately how many people, Mr. Jenkins require humanitarian assistance in Yemen? David Jenkins: 22 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): What percent of the population is that? David Jenkins: Approximately 75% was the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance increase from last year. It increased by our, we're estimating 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how much has it increased? David Jenkins: About 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Okay. How many are severely food insecure? David Jenkins: 17.8 million. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many children are severely malnourished? David Jenkins: 460,000 Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many people lack access to clean water and working toilets? David Jenkins: We estimate it to be around 16 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Does Yemen face the largest cholera outbreak in the world? David Jenkins: It does. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many cholera cases have we seen in Yemen? David Jenkins: A suspected over a 1 million cases. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how many lives has that cholera outbreak claim? David Jenkins: Almost 2100. 1:46:00 Robert Jenkins: I do know that the vast majority of people within that, the majority of people in need, and that 22 million number live in the northern part of the country that are accessible best and easiest by Hodeidah port, there is no way to take Hodeidah out of the equation and get anywhere near the amount of humanitarian and more importantly, even commercial goods into the country. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North America, C-SPAN, April 14, 2015. Witnesses: Gerald Feierstein: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Former Ambassador to Yemen (2010-2013) Sound Clips: 1:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): On September 10th of last year, President Obama announced to the American public his plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL. While making his case for America's role in the fight against ISIL, the president highlighted our strategy in Yemen and held it up as a model of success to be emulated in the fight against ISIL. Yet about a week later, the Iran backed Houthis seized control of the capital and the government. Despite this, the administration continued to hail our counter-terror operations in Yemen as a model for success, even though we effectively had no partner on the ground since President Hadi was forced to flee. But perhaps even more astonishingly in what can only be described as an alarmingly tone deaf and short sighted, when Press Secretary Ernest was asked at a press briefing if this model was still successful after the Yemeni central government collapsed and the US withdrew all of our personnel including our special forces, he said yes, despite all indications pointing to the contrary. So where do we stand now? That's the important question. President Hadi was forced to flee. Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of over 10 Arab nations and Operation Decisive Storm, which so far has consisted of airstrikes only, but very well could include ground forces in the near future. 4:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): Iran has reportedly dispatched a naval destroyer near Yemen in a game of chicken over one of the most important shipping routes in the Gulf of Aden. This area is a gateway between Europe and the Middle East and ran was not be allowed to escalate any tensions nor attempt to disrupt the shipping lanes. 13:30 Rep. David Cicilline (NJ): I think it's safe to say that the quick deterioration of the situation in Yemen took many people here in Washington by surprise. For many years, Yemen was held up as an example of counter-terrorism cooperation and it looked as if a political agreement might be achieved in the aftermath of the Arab spring. The United States poured approximately $900 million in foreign aid to Yemen since the transition in 2011 to support counter-terrorism, political reconciliation, the economy and humanitarian aid. Now we face a vastly different landscape and have to revise our assumptions and expectations. Furthermore, we risk being drawn deeply into another Iranian backed armed conflict in the Middle East. 17:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Following the deposition of Yemen's longtime autocratic Saleh in 2011, the US supported an inclusive transition process. We had national dialogue aimed at rebuilding the country's political and governmental institutions and bridging gaps between groups that have had a long history of conflict. Yemen's first newly elected leader, President Hadi made clear his intentions to cooperate closely with the United States. 18:00 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Yemen, the poorest country on the peninsula, needed support from the international community. The United States has long viewed Yemen as a safe haven for all Qaeda terrorists, and there was alarming potential for recruitment by terrorist groups given the dire economic conditions that they faced. In fact, the US Department of Homeland Security considers al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate, most likely the al Qaeda affiliate, most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States. 18:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): While the national dialogue was initially viewed as successful, the process concluded in 2014 with several key reforms still not completed, including the drafting of the new constitution. The Hadi government had continued to face deep opposition from Yemen's northern tribes, mainly the Shiite Iranian backed Houthi rebels, over the past year. The Houthis, in coordination with tribes and military units still loyal to Saleh, began increasing their territorial control, eventually moving in to Sanaa. Saleh had long been thought to have used his existing relationship to undermine the Hadi government. Houthis are well trained, well funded, and experienced fighters, having fought the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia in 2009. 23:15 Gerald Feierstein: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to review recent developments in Yemen and the efforts that the United States is undertaking to support the government of Yemen under president Rabu Mansour Hadi and the Saudi led coalition of Operation Decisive Storm, that is aimed at restoring the legitimate government and restarting the negotiations to find peaceful political solutions to Yemen's internal conflict. 26:45 Gerald Feierstein: To the best of our understanding, the Houthis are not controlled directly by Iran. However, we have seen in recent years, significant growth and expansion of Iranian engagement with the Houthis. We believe that Iran sees opportunities with the Houthis to expand its influence in Yemen and threatened Saudi and Gulf Arab interests. Iran provides financial support, weapons training, and intelligence of the Houthis and the weeks and months since the Houthis entered Sanaa and forced the legitimate government first to resign and ultimately to flee from the capitol, we have seen a significant expansion of Iranian involvement in Yemen's domestic affairs. 27:30 Gerald Feierstein: We are also particularly concerned about the ongoing destabilizing role played by former President Saleh, who since his removal from power in 2011 has actively plotted to undermine President Hadi and the political transition process. Despite UN sanctions and international condemnation of his actions, Saleh continues to be one of the primary sources of the chaos in Yemen. We have been working with our Gulf partners and the international community to isolate him and prevent the continuation of his efforts to undermine the peaceful transition. Success in that effort will go a long way to helping Yemen return to a credible political transition process. 42:00 Gerald Feierstein: From our perspective, I would say that that Yemen is a unique situation for the Saudis. This is on their border. It represents a threat in a way that no other situation would represent. 52:30 Gerald Feierstein: I mean, obviously our hope would be that if we can get the situation stabilized and get the political process going again, that we would be able to return and that we would be able to continue implementing the kinds of programs that we were trying to achieve that are aimed at economic growth and development as well as supporting a democratic governance and the opportunity to try to build solid political foundations for the society. At this particular moment, we can't do that, but it's hard to predict where we might be in six months or nine months from now. 1:10:00 Gerald Feierstein: When the political crisis came in Yemen in 2011, AQAP was able to take advantage of that and increase its territorial control, to the extent that they were actually declaring areas of the country to be an Islamic caliphate, not unlike what we see with ISIL in Iraq and Syria these days. Because of our cooperation, primarily our cooperation with the Yemeni security forces, uh, we were able to, uh, to defeat that, uh, at a significant loss of a life for AQAP. Uh, as a result of that, they changed their tactics. They went back to being a more traditional terrorist organization. They were able to attack locations inside of, uh, inside of Sanaa and and elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is that, uh, that we, uh, were achieving a progress in our ability to pressure them, uh, and, uh, to keep them on the defensive as opposed to giving them lots of time. And remember in 2009 in 2010, uh, we saw AQAP mount a fairly serious efforts - the underwear bomber and then also the cassette tape effort to attack the United States. After 2010, uh, they were not able to do that, uh, despite the fact that their intent was still as clear and as strong as it was before. And so a while AQAP was by no means defeated and continue to be a major threat to security here in the United States as well as in Yemen and elsewhere around the world, nevertheless, I think that it was legitimate to say that we had achieved some success in the fight against AQAP. Unfortunately what we're seeing now because of the change in the situation again, inside of Yemen, uh, is that we're losing some of the gains that we were able to make, uh, during that period of 2012 to 2014. That's why it's so important that we, uh, have, uh, the ability to get the political negotiation started again, so that we can re-establish legitimate government inside of Sanaa that will cooperate with us once again in this fight against violent extremist organizations. 1:16:45 Rep. Ted Yoho (FL): How can we be that far off? And I know you explained the counter-terrorism portion, but yet to have a country taken over while we're sitting there working with them and this happens. I feel, you know, it just kinda happened overnight the way our embassy got run out of town and just says, you have to leave. Your marines cannot take their weapons with them. I, I just, I don't understand how that happens or how we can be that disconnected. Um, what are your thoughts on that? Gerald Feierstein: You know, it was very, it was very frustrating. Again, I think that, if you go back to where we were a year ago, the successful conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference, which was really the last major hurdle and completion of the GCC initiative, Houthis participated in that. They participated in the constitutional drafting exercise, which was completed successfully. Uh, and so we were in the process of moving through all of the requirements of the GCC initiative that would allow us to complete successfully the political transition. I think there were a combination of things. One, that there was a view on the part of the Houthis that they were not getting everything that they wanted. They were provoked, in our view, by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who never stopped plotting from the very first day after he signed the agreement on the GCC initiative. He never stopped plotting to try to block the political transition, and there was, to be frank, there was a weakness in the government and an inability on the part of the government to really build the kind of alliances and coalition that would allow them to sustain popular support and to bring this to a successful conclusion. And so I think that all through this period there was a sense that we were moving forward and that we believed that we could succeed in implementing this peaceful transition. And yet we always knew that on the margins there were threats and there were risks, and unfortunately we got to a point where the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh, my personal view is that they recognized that they had reached the last possible moment, where they could obstruct the peaceful political transition that was bad for them because it would mean that they wouldn't get everything that they wanted, and so they saw that time was running out for them, and they decided to act. And unfortunately, the government was unable to stop them. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, C-SPAN, April 23, 2013. Sound Clips: 44:30 Farea al-Muslimi: My name as you mentioned, is Farea al-Muslimi, and I am from Wessab, a remote village mountain in Yemen. I spent a year living with an American family and attended an American high school. That was one of the best years of my life. I learned about American culture, managed the school basketball team and participated in trick or treat and Halloween. But the most exceptional was coming to know someone who ended up being like a father to me. He was a member of the U S Air Force and most of my year was spent with him and his family. He came to the mosque with me and I went to church with him and he became my best friend in America. I went to the U.S. as an ambassador for Yemen and I came back to Yemen as an ambassador of the U.S. I could never have imagined that the same hand that changed my life and took it from miserable to a promising one would also drone my village. My understanding is that a man named Hamid al-Radmi was the target of the drone strike. Many people in Wessab know al-Radmi, and the Yemeni government could easily have found and arrested him. al-Radmi was well known to government officials and even local government could have captured him if the U.S. had told them to do so. In the past, what Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences had. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time. What violent militants had previously failed to achieve one drone strike accomplished in an instant. 1:17:30 Farea al-Muslimi: I think the main difference between this is it adds into Al Qaeda propaganda of that Yemen is a war with the United States. The problem of Al Qaeda, if you look to the war in Yemen, it's a war of mistakes. The less mistake you make, the more you win, and the drones have simply made more mistakes than AQAP has ever done in the matter of civilians. News Report: Untold Stories of the underwear bomber: what really happened, ABC News 7 Detroit, September 27, 2012. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, July 19, 2011. Witnesses: Janet Sanderson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Daniel Benjamin: State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Sound Clips: 21:00 Janet Sanderson: The United States continues its regular engagement with the government, including with President Ali, Abdullah Saleh, who's currently, as you know, recovering in Saudi Arabia from his injuries following the June 3rd attack on his compound, the acting president, Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the opposition, civil society activists, and others interested in Yemen's future. We strongly support the Gulf Cooperation Council's initiative, which we believe would lead to a peaceful and orderly political transition. The GCC initiative signed by both the ruling General People's Congress party and the opposition coalition, joint meeting parties. Only president Saleh is blocking the agreement moving forward and we continue to call on him to sign the initiative. 22:30 Janet Sanderson: While most protests in Yemen have been peaceful over the last couple of months, there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators and between protesters and government security forces and irregular elements using forced to break up demonstrations. The United States is strongly urged the Yemeni government to investigate and prosecute all acts of violence against protesters. 27:00 Janet Sanderson: We strongly believe that a transition is necessary, that an orderly, peaceful transition is the only way to begin to lead Yemen out of the crisis that it has been in for the last few months. 34:30 Daniel Benjamin: Really, I just want to echo what ambassador Sanderson said. It is vitally important that the transition take place. 1:02:15 Daniel Benjamin: The the view from the administration, particularly from a DOD, which is doing of course, the lion's share of the training, although State Department through anti-terrorism training is doing, uh, uh, a good deal as well, is that the Yemenis are, uh, improving their capacities, that they are making good progress towards, uh, being, able to deal with the threats within their border. But it is important to recognize that, uh, uh, our engagement in Yemen was interrupted for many years. Uh, Yemen, uh, did not have the kind of mentoring programs, the kind of training programs that many of our other counter-terrorism partners had. Um, it was really when the Obama administration came into office that a review was done, uh, in, in March of, uh, beginning in March of 2009, it was recognized that Yemen was a major challenge in the world of counter terrorism. And it was not until, uh, December after many conversations with the Yemenis that we really felt that they were on-board with the project and in fact took their first actions against AQAP. This, as you may recall, was just shortly before the attempted, uh, December 25th bombing of the northwest flight. So this is a military and a set of, uh, Ministry of Interior that is civilian, uh, units that are making good progress, but obviously have a lot to learn. So, uh, again, vitally important that we get back to the work of training these units so that they can, uh, take on the missions they need to. Press Conference: , C-SPAN, January 27, 2010. Speakers: David Miliband - British Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State Abu Bakr al-Kurbi - Yemeni Foreign Minister Sound Clips: 3:30 David Miliband: And working closely with the government of Yemen, we decided that our agenda needed to cover agreement on the nature of the problem and then address the, uh, solutions across the economic, social, and political terrain. Five key items were agreed at the meeting for the way in which the international community can support progress in Yemen. First, confirmation by the government of Yemen, that it will continue to pursue its reform agenda and agreement to start discussion of an IMF program. The director of the IMF represented at the meeting made a compelling case for the way in which economic reform could be supported by the IMF. This is important because it will provide welcome support and help the government of Yemen confront its immediate challenges. 11:45 Hillary Clinton: The United States just signed a three year umbrella assistance agreement with the government of Yemen that will augment Yemen's capacity to make progress. This package includes initiatives that will cover a range of programs, but the overarching goal of our work is to increase the capacity and governance of Yemen and give the people of Yemen the opportunity to better make choices in their own lives. President Saleh has outlined a 10 point plan for economic reform along with the country's national reform agenda. Those are encouraging signs of progress. Neither, however, will mean much if they are not implemented. So we expect Yemen to enact reforms, continue to combat corruption, and improve the country's investment in business climate. 15:45 Abu Bakr al-Kurbi: This commitment also stems from our belief that the challenges we are facing now cannot be remedied unless we implement this agenda of reforms and the 10 points that her exellency alluded to because this is now a priority number of issues that we have to start with, and I hope this is what will be one of the outcomes of this meeting. 16:30 Hillary Clinton: One of the factors that's new is the IMF's involvement and commitment. the IMF has come forward with a reform agenda that the government of Yemen has agreed to work on. 24:30 Hillary Clinton: We were pleased by the announcement of a cease fire, um, between the Saudis and the Houthis. That should lead, we hope, to broader negotiations and a political dialogue that might lead to a permanent, uh, end to the conflict in the north. It's too soon to tell. The Daily Show with John Stewart: , CC.com, January 6, 2010. The Daily Show with John Stewart: , CC.com, January 4, 2010. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD194: Measles Outbreak

15 april 2019 | 87 min

Measles is back in the United States and is currently spreading quickly; the number of cases in the United States in 2019 has already surpassed the number of cases in all of last year. In this episode, get highlights from two Congressional hearings addressing the measles outbreak, which answered a lot of questions about the dangers of the disease, what is causing the outbreak, what is being done about it by the government, and what we can do to help. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD190: Additional Reading Article: by Lenny Bernstein, Lena H. Sun, and Gabrielle Paluch, The Washington Post, April 11, 2019. Tweet: from Rep. Jeff Duncan, April 11, 2019. Article: by Debra Goldschmidt, CNN, April 8, 2019. Article: by Sara Chodosh, Popular Science, April 8, 2019. Article: , Yahoo News, April 7, 2019. Article: by Jenna DeAngelis, CBS Local New York, April 5, 2019. Article: by Carolyn Wilke, The Scientist, April 2, 2019. Article: by Helen Branswell, Stat News, March 26, 2019. Article: by Nicholas Casey, Christoph Koettl, and Deborah Acosta, The New York Times, March 10, 2019. Article: by Jonathan Lambert, NPR, February 8, 2019. Article: by Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, December 21, 2018. Article: by Jillian Kubala, Healthline, October 4, 2018. Article: by Sylvia Booth Hubbard, Newsmax Health, February 3, 2015. Research Article: by D.L. Fisher, S. Defres, and T. Solomon, QJM International Journal of Medicine, May 26, 2014. Research Article: by A. Bitnun, P. Shannon, A. Durward, P.A. Rota, W.J.Bellini, C. Graham, E. Wang, E.L. Ford-Jones, P. Cox, L. Becker, M. Fearon, M. Petric, and R. Tellier, PubMed, October 29, 1999. Resources Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Health Resources & Services Administration: National Institute of Health: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): Washington State Department of Health: Website: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Senate.gov, March 5, 2019. Witnesses: Dr. John Wiesman: Secretary of Health for Washington State Jonathan A. McCullers, MD: Professor and Chair, Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Pediatrician-in-Chief, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN Saad B. Omer, MBBS, MPH, PhD: William H. Foege Professor Of Global Health Professor of Epidemiology & Pediatrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA John G. Boyle, President And CEO: Immune Deficiency Foundation, Towson, MD Ethan Lindenberger: Student, Norwalk High School, Norwalk, OH Sound Clips: 20:00 Dr. John Wiesman: As of yesterday, Washington State's measles outbreak had 71 cases plus four cases associated with our outbreak in Oregon and one in Georgia. Containing a measles outbreak takes a whole community response led by governmental public health. The moment they suspected cases reported, disease investigators interviewed that person to determine when they were infectious, who they were in close contact with and what public spaces they visited. If still infectious, the health officer orders them to isolate themselves so they don't infect others, notifies the public and the about the community about the public places that they were in when they are infectious and stands up a call center to handle questions. We also reach out to individuals who were in close contact with the patient. If they are unvaccinated and without symptoms, we ask them to quarantine themselves for up to 21 days. That's how long it can take to develop symptoms and we monitor them so that we quickly know if they develop measles. If they show symptoms, we get them to a healthcare provider and obtain samples to test for measles and if they have measles, we start the investigation process all over again. This is a staff and time intensive activity and is highly disruptive to people's lives. Responding to this preventable outbreak has cost over $1 million and required the work of more than 200 individuals. 21:15 Dr. John Wiesman: So what do we need from the federal government? First, we need sustained, predictable and increased federal funding. Congress must prioritize public health and support the prevention and public health fund. We are constantly reacting to crises rather than working to prevent them. The Association of state and territorial health officials and over 80 organizations are asking you to raise the CDC budget by 22% by FY22 this will immediately bolster prevention services, save lives, and reduce healthcare cost. Second, our response to this outbreak has been benefited greatly from the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, so thank you. The Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement in the hospital preparedness programs authorized by this law are currently funded $400 million below funding levels in the 2000s. More robust funding is needed and I strongly urge you to quickly reauthorize POPRA because many of the authorizations expired last year. Third, the three 17 immunization program has been a flat funded for 10 years without increased funding. We cannot afford to develop new ways to reach parents with immunization information nor maintain our electronic immunization systems. Fourth, we need federal leadership for a national vaccine campaign spearheaded by CDC in partnership with states that counter the anti-vaccine messages similar to the successful TRUTH tobacco prevention campaign. We have lost much ground. Urgent action is necessary. 46:15 Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): In your opinion, there's no evidence, reputable evidence, that vaccines cause autism? Jonathan McCullers: There is absolutely no evidence at this time that vaccines cause autism. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Dr. Omer, do you agree with that? Saad B. Omer: Absolutely. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Doctor Wiesman, do you agree with that? Dr. John Wiesman: I do. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Mr. Boyle, do you agree with that ideal? John Boyle: I do. Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN): Mr Lindenbergeer? Ethan Lindenberger: I do. 47:30 Dr. John Wiesman: The choice to sort of make exemptions more difficult - to get them to be a sort of as burdensome as not getting the vaccine - is incredibly important. In Washington state, as you know, we have two bills right now that are looking to remove the personal exemptions from a vaccine for school entry and for child care entry. I think that's one of the tools that we have and that we should be using for this. 47:45 Dr. John Wiesman: I will also say in Washington state, another problem we have is that about 8% of our kids are out of compliance with school records so that we don't even know if they're vaccinated or would like exemptions and we have to tackle that problem as well. 1:05:45 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): Today though, instead of persuasion, many governments have taken to mandating a whole host of vaccines including vaccines for nonlethal diseases. Sometimes these vaccine mandates have run a muck when the, as when the government mandated a rotavirus vaccine that was later recalled because it was causing intestinal blockage in children. I'm not a fan of government coercion, yet given the choice, I do believe that the benefits of most vaccines vastly outweigh the risks. Yet it is wrong to say that there are no risks to vaccines. Even the government admits that children are sometimes injured by vaccines. Since 1988 over $4 billion has been paid out from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Despite the government admitting to in paying $4 billion for vaccine injuries, no informed consent is used or required when you vaccinate your child. This may be the only medical procedure in today's medical world where an informed consent is not required. Now, proponents of mandatory government vaccination argue that parents who ref use to vaccinate their children risk spreading these disease to the immunocompromised community. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence of this happening to be recorded as a statistic, but it could happen. But if the fear of this is valid are we to find that next we'll be mandating flu vaccines. Between 12 and 56,000 people die from the flu or are said to die from the flu in America and there's estimated to be a few hundred from measles. So I would guess that those who want to mandate measles will be after us on the flu next. Yet the current science only allows for educated guessing when it comes to the flu vaccine. Each year before that year's flu vaccine is, or strain is known, the scientists put their best guess into that year's vaccine. Some years it's completely wrong. We vaccinate for the wrong strain of flu vaccine. Yet five states already mandate flu vaccines. Is it really appropriate, appropriate to mandate a vaccine that more often than not vaccinates for the wrong flu strain. As we contemplate forcing parents to choose this or that vaccine, I think it's important to remember that force is not consistent with the American story, nor is force considered consistent with the liberty our forefathers saught when they came to America. I don't think you have to have one of the other, though. I'm not here to say don't vaccinate your kids. If this hearing is for persuasion, I'm all for the persuasion. I vaccinated myself. I vaccinated my kid. For myself and my children I believe that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh the risks, but I still do not favor giving up on liberty for a false sense of security. Thank you. 1:13:20 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA): This administration has repeatedly sought to cut the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports key immunization programs, and they've continued their efforts to weaken the Medicaid program, which covers all of the recommended vaccines for children and for many adults as well. I am glad that most of my colleagues are on the same page about the importance of vaccines. Now let's make sure we're also on the same page about the importance of public health funding, so people get access to those vaccines. 1:28:30 Jonathan McCullers: So Mississippi does not allow any nonmedical exemptions, and they have nearly a 100% rate of immunization at school entry. They pay a lot of attention to it. Tennessee's in the middle, they allow religious exemptions, but not philosophical exemptions. In Tennessee, we have about a 97% vaccination rate of kindergarten entry, but we've seen the rate of nonmedical exemptions under the religious exemption triple in the last 10 years, so you can predict where that's going. Arkansas ,on the other hand, allows both religious and philosophical exemptions and has a rate that's around 93 to 94% below the level for community immunity. Hearing: , Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House of Representatives, C-SPAN, February 27, 2019. Witnesses: Dr. Nancy Messonnier Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Sound Clips: 3:42 Chairman Diana Degette (CO): The national measles vaccination rate of children between 19 and 35 months old is currently at 91%. That may seem high to some, but given the highly contagious nature nature of measles, it's well below the 95% vaccination rate that's required to protect communities and give it what it's known as herd immunity. This so called herd immunity is particularly vital to protecting those who cannot be or are not yet vaccinated against the measles, such as infants or those with prior medical conditions who are at a higher risk of suffering severe complications from the vaccine. 4:30 Chairman Diana Degette (CO): While the overall national rate of MMR vaccinations is currently at 91%, the rate in some communities is much lower. Some are as low as 77%. 9:15 Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): Every state except three have enacted religious exemptions for parents who wish not to vaccinate their children. There are 17 states allow a personal philosophical exemption, which means that most people can opt out for any reason. For example, in Washington state, just 0.3% of Washington's families with kindergartners use a religious exemption. While 3.7% of families use a personal exemption and 0.8% use a medical exemption. Vaccine exemptions have increased in the past three years to a median 2.2% of kindergardeners among all states. 10:00 Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): After the Disneyland linked outbreak to measles in 2014, the state of California ended the religious and personal exemption for vaccines. The Washington legislature is working on legislation that substantially narrows the exemptions for vaccination that would eliminate the personal or philosophical exemption while tightening the religious exemption. In recent weeks, take legislators in New Jersey, New York, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont, have proposed eliminating religious exemptions for vaccines. However, last week, the Arizona House Health and Human Service Committee approved three bills to examine exemptions for mandatory vaccinations. 23:25 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: From January 1st to February 21st, 159 cases of measles have been confirmed in 10 states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. In 2018, 372 people with measles were reported from 25 states and the district of Columbia. Most cases have been unvaccinated. 24:15 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Nationally, we enjoy high measles vaccination coverage. However, there are pockets of people who are vaccine hesitant, who delay or even refuse to vaccinate themselves and their children. Outbreaks of measles occur, when measles gets into these communities of unvaccinated people. Those choosing not to vaccinate, tend to live near each other. Some of these are what we call close knit communities. People who share common religious beliefs or racial ethnic background. Others are people who have strong personal belief against vaccination. 25:15 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Vaccine hesitancy is the result of a misunderstanding of the risk and seriousness of disease combined with misinformation regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. However, the specific issues fueling hesitancy varies by community. Because vaccine hesitancy remains a highly localized issue, the strategy to address these issues need to be local with support from CDC. Strong immunization programs at the state and local levels are critical to understanding the specific issues and empowering local action. CDC also works to support state and local public health efforts through research to understand these reasons and develop targeted strategies to address hesitancy. 28:40 Dr. Anthony Fauci: Measles virus is one of the most contagious viruses that we know among the pathogens that confront mankind. As mentioned, that if an individual gets into a room with someone who has measles, and that person is coughing and sneezing, there's about a 90% chance that that person. That is very unlike other diseases like influenza and other respiratory diseases when the hit rate, although it's high, is nothing, uh, approaching 90%. 30:00 Dr. Anthony Fauci: As was mentioned prior to the vaccine era, there were about 3 million deaths each year. The decrease was dramatic. There were 21 million lives that were saved from vaccines between the year 2000 and 2017. But as shown on the last bullet on this slide, there are 110,000 deaths still today in the world, which means there's the danger of the reinsertion of measles from other countries, and if we're not protected. 31:00 Dr. Anthony Fauci: Well, let's take a look at some of the things that I mentioned about the disease itself. Fever, cough, rash, as was mentioned by Dr. Burgess, again, contagious from four days before the rash to four days after. So people are spreading measles before they really know that they actually have measles. We have a group of individuals who are particularly at risk for complications, infants and children, pregnant women, immunocompromised, and even adults. If you're not protected and you get infected, adults have a high incidence of complications. You've heard about the complications. They are not trivial. One out of 10 with ear infections, which could lead to deafness, pneumonia in one out of 20 cases, and encephalitis one in a thousand. A very rare occurrence called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, seven to 10 years after an individual develops measles, they can have a very devastating neurological syndrome, no known cure, and is vaccine preventable. 34:15 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Taking care of your health, eating well, exercising, getting enough sleep: Those are all parts of a healthy lifestyle, but the only way to protect against measles is to get vaccinated. It's a safe and effective vaccine, and parents should go ahead and get vaccinated. 36:00 Chairman Diana Degette (CO): What are the risks inherent in the vaccine itself? I think that might be one reason why, um, some, some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children as they believe that the risks with the vaccine outweigh the benefits. Dr. Nancy Messonnier: I think you're exactly right and I think in the setting of not a lot of measles cases around, parents weigh in their mind the risks and benefits and think they shouldn't vaccinate. Truth is this is an incredibly safe vaccine. We have a host of experience with it. The vaccine's been used for a really long time. We in the United States enjoy one of the most robust systems to monitor the safety of vaccines. And that's why we can say with confidence that this is a safe vaccine. The most common side effects are a sore arm, which goes away pretty quickly. 42:00 Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): I've heard some parents claim that measles vaccine can cause brain inflammation known as encephalitis. Is that true? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Brain inflammation? Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): Encephalitis? Can the measles vaccine cause encephalitis? The vaccine? Dr. Anthony Fauci: The vaccine? No. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): There's no cases? Chairman Diana Degette (CO): The Chair will remind all persons in the audience that manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house and its committees. Gentlemen may proceed. Dr. Nancy Messonnier: In healthy children, the MMR vaccine does not cause brain swelling or encephalitis. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): So if a, if a child was unhealthy when they're vaccinated? Dr. Nancy Messonnier: So, there are rare instances of children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system and who the vaccine is contra indicated. One of the reasons its contra indicated is in that very specific group of children, there is a rare risk of brain swelling. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): Would the parent know if their child was in that category before… Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Certainly, and that's why parents should talk to their doctor. 43:15 Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): So there's another thing that's that people can self medicate with vitamin A to prevent measles and not do the vaccine. Is that, what's the validity of that in your opinion? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Well, the history of vitamin A and measles goes back to some very important and I think transforming studies that were done years ago in, in sub Saharan Africa, is that with vitamin A supplements, particularly in vitamin A deficiency that children who get measles have a much more difficult course. So vitamin A associated with measles can actually protect you against some of the, uh, toxic and adverse effects. Importantly, since in a country, a developed nation where you really don't have any issue with vitamin A deficiency, that you don't really see that transforming effect. But some really good studies that were done years ago show that vitamin A supplementation can be very helpful in preventing the complications of measles. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): It doesn't prevent the onset of measles if, if you're not… Dr. Anthony Fauci: No. Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY): is that what you're saying? It doesn't want to put words in your mouth. Dr. Anthony Fauci: It doesn't prevent measles. But it's important in preventing some of the complications in societies in which vitamin A deficiency might exist. 46:10 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL): I'm trying to understand what has happened between 2000 and 2019 and why we're, we've fallen so far from the public health success stories, um, when the CDC actually said that there we had eradicated in the United States, uh, measles in, in, in 2000. So Dr. Messonnier, yes or no: Do you believe the primary cause of the spike and measles outbreak over the past few years is due to vaccine hesitancy and misinformation? Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Yes and no. I think vaccine hesitancy is a, is a word that means many different things. Parents have questions about vaccines, they get those questions answered. That isn't what you should call a hesitancy. So I do believe that parents concerns about vaccine leads to under vaccination and most of the cases that we're seeing are an unvaccinated communities. However, if you look nationally at measles vaccination coverage, there were other things that are associated with low coverage. Um, for example, living in a rural area versus an urban area. Rural areas have lower vaccine coverage with measles. Schakowsky: How would you account for that? Messonnier: Well, I think that there are other things besides the sole choice that are around access to care. For example, kids without health insurance have lower measles vaccination coverage. Schakowsky: So generally lack of access to care. Messonnier: In addition to parents making decisions not to vaccinate their kids. Yes. 50:20 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): I do feel obligated dimension that vitamin A is not like vitamin C. You may not take unlimited quantities of vitamin A with impunity. It is a fat soluble vitamin and it is stored in the body. Uh, so don't go out and hyper dose on vitamin A because it, uh, it will not accrue to your long-term benefit. 54:15 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): Did the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine ever contain mercury or thimerosal? I'll need a verbal answer for the clerk. Dr. Anthony Fauci: No. It's preservative free. 56:00 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: So measles was identified as eliminated in the United States in 2000 because there was no longer sustained transmission in the US. However, measles continues to circulate globally, which means unvaccinated US travelers can be exposed to measles and bring it back home with them, and folks in their families and their communities, if they're not protected by vaccine, are at risk. And measles is so incredibly contagious that it can spread really quickly. So yes, we should be concerned. 57:00 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): What role do you see this spread of disinformation online playing in, in, in the rise of, um, of these outbreaks? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Yeah, I believe Mr. Pallone, that it plays an important role. It's, it's not the only one but, but I believe it plays an important role. And I think the classic example of that was the disinformation associated with the relationship between measles, vaccination and autism, which, uh, back when it came out, uh, years ago, there was a big concern that this was the case when it was investigated. It became clear that the data upon which those statements were made were false and fraudulent. And the person who made them had his medical license revoked in England. And yet, as you know very well, the good news about the Internet is that it spreads important information. That's good. And the bad news about the Internet is that when the bad information gets on there, it's tough to get it off. And yet people refer to things that have been proven to be false. So this information is really an important issue that we need to try and overcome by continuing to point people to what's evidenced based and what's science-based. So in, in so many respects, we shouldn't be criticizing people who get these information that's false because they may not know it's false. We need to try and continue to educate them to show them what the true evidence base is. But in direct answer to your question, that is an important problem, disinformation. Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): Now do you think that the promotion of this inaccurate and fear based messages, would you consider that in itself a threat to public health? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Yes, of course. I think the spread of false information that leads people into poor choices, even though they're well meaning in their choice, it's a poor choice based on information. I think that's a major contribution to the problem that we're discussing. (lady behind him holds up a book titled “Autism Epidemic”) 1:04:00 Dr. Anthony Fauci: But when you have a highly effective, and I want to underscore that because measles is one of the most effective vaccines that we have of any vaccine that a massive public health effort could lead to eradication. Because we don't have an animal vector, we don't have an intermediate host. We don't have a vector that transmits it. It is just person to person transmissibility. So theoretically we could eradicate it. The problem between eradication and elimination, if you eliminate it like we did in this country in 2000 as long as this measles somewhere, you always have the threat of it reemerging if you let down the umbrella of herd immunity. 1:05:00 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: Dr. Fauci is correct about Madagascar, but I think Americans don't realize that in 2018 there were also outbreaks in England, France, Italy, and Greece. American travelers going abroad need to think about their immunization status, not just when they're going into countries like Madagascar, but even going to Europe. 1:11:45 Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC): And one of the world's measle outbreaks right now, it's happening in Brazil where people fleeing a completely broken country of Venezuela are spreadingeas measles and - madam chair- I'd like to submit for the record, an NPR article, "The collapse of health system sends Venezuelans fleeing to Brazil for basic medical needs." And I'll submit that for the record. Um, they've been in a unvaccinated population because of the collapse of the failed socialist state in Venezuela where there should be an instructive example for some of us in this committee room of the lack of that sort of medical treatment of vaccinations. I would note that the humanitarian aid that countries like the U.S. are trying to send to Venezuela is being burned on bridges by the Maduro regime instead of actually being used to help his own people. This includes vaccinations, like the ones we're discussing today. There were measles vaccinations that were burned on the bridges as part of the relief effort to Venezuela. 1:18:30 Rep. Kathy Castor (FL): I was a little confused by the last line of questioning that they're, the alarm should be over, uh, immigration and, and asylum seekers. You have a comment on that, Dr. Fauci? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Well, I, I think what Dr. Messonnier said is absolutely correct. If you look at the known outbreak, so if you take the outbreak in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn in New York City and in Rockland County, it was a relatively closed group who had a rate of vaccination that was below the level of a good herd immunity. A person from Israel understandably came over legally as a visitor into the community. And then you had a massive outbreak in New York. The Somali community in Minnesota, the same thing happened. You had a group there who had a lower rate that went below the cutoff point for herd immunity. Some immigrant came in as one of the members of the community, was a relatively closed community, and that's what you have. So I think when you talk about outbreaks, it really transcends some of the demographic issues that you were talking about, about lower income or rural versus urban. It really is an a closed community that we're seeing it. Castor: with lower vaccination rates. Fauci: Right, exactly. So a lower vaccination rates. 1:23:45 Rep. Paul Tonko (NY): In response to the spotlight on the monetization of misinformation about vaccines and the ways in which platforms are being manipulated to promote anti vaccination messaging, some companies have announced new policies. For instance, Facebook says it is working on its algorithms to prevent anti-vaccination content from being recommended to users. Pinterest has decided to remove all vaccination related posts and searches, even accurate information. And YouTube just recently announced that it would prevent channels that promote anti-vaccination content from running advertising. Dr Fauci, do you think these actions are a step in the right direction to ensure parents and families have access to science-based factual health information? Dr. Anthony Fauci: Obviously it's a very sensitive subject because it then gets in the that borderline between the, you know, the essentially crushing of information that might actually be useful information. However, having said that, I do think that a close look and scrutiny at something that is egregiously incorrect has some merits of taking a careful look as to whether, one, you want to be participating in the dissemination of that. Always being careful about not wanting to essentially curtail freedom of expression. You still want to make sure you don't do something that is so clearly hazardous to the health of individuals. Rep. Paul Tonko (NY): I appreciate that. And Dr. Messonnier, as the agency charged with protecting our national public health, what efforts are underway at CDC to counter the online proliferation of anti vaccination disinformation. Dr. Nancy Messonnier: As a science based agency, CDC really focuses on making sure that we get scientifically credible information available to the folks at the front lines it needed every day. In order to do that, we do scan social media to see what issues are arising and what questions are emerging to make sure that we can then gather the scientifically appropriate answers and get that to our partners in the front line so that they can talk to patients about that information. 1:30:30 Dr. Nancy Messonnier: The concept of herd immunity is that by vaccinating an individual, you don't just prevent them from getting disease, but you also prevent them from transmitting it to others. And what that means is that in our community, individuals who, for example, can't get the vaccine because they're too young, or they have some kind of illness that prevents it, are still protected by the cushion of protection provided by their community. Radio Interview: , Hugh Hewitt Book Club, February 1, 2019. Hugh Hewitt: There are reports of Venezuela shipping gold to the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is a very close ally of ours. Have you asked the UAE to sequester that gold? John Bolton: Let me just say this. We’re obviously aware of those reports consistent with what we did on Monday against PDVSA, the state-owned oil monopoly where we imposed crippling sanctions. Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, is implementing them as we speak. We’re also looking at cutting off other streams of revenue and assets for the Maduro mafia, and that certainly includes gold. And we’ve already taken some steps to neutralize gold that’s been out of the country used as collateral for bank loans. We’ve frozen, and our friends in Europe, have frozen a substantial amount of that. We want to try and do the same here. We’re on top of it. That’s really all I can say at the moment. White House Daily Briefing: , C-SPAN, January 28, 2019. Speakers: Steve Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary John Bolton - National Security Advisor Sound Clips: 7:43 Steven Mnuchin: But effective immediately, any purchases of Venezuelan oil by U.S. entities, money will have to go into blocked accounts. Now, I've been in touch with many of the refineries. There is a significant amount of oil that's at sea that's already been paid for. That oil will continue to come to the United States. If the people in Venezuela want to continue to sell us oil, as long as that money goes into blocked accounts, we'll continue to take it. Otherwise, we will not be buying it. And again, we have issued general licenses, so the refineries in the United States can continue to operate. 9:06 Steven Mnuchin: The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. So when there is a recognition that PDVSA is the property of the rightful rulers, the rightful leaders, the president, then, indeed, that money will be available to Guaido. Interview: , CNN, October 23, 2008. Documentary: , Co-produced by US Public Health Service and Merck, C-SPAN/American History TV, 1964. 3:30 Narrator: As of this time, measles is by far our most serious epidemic childhood disease. Although nearly half a million cases are reported each year, the actual number is probably closer to 4 million. 3:45 Narrator: In 1961 after the polio vaccines had reduced the deaths from that disease to 90, that same year 434 measles deaths were reported. In the less developed countries of the world, the toll taken by measles is much greater. In Nigeria, it is estimated that one out of four babies contracting measles dies from it. The tragic toll of measles is also told in a neighboring republic Upper Volta, where in one village, an epidemic killed 113 out of 115 children who got the disease. Across the ocean in Chile, measles accounts for half of all childhood deaths from acute communicable diseases each year. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD193: How to Prevent Death by Chemical Explosion (CFATS)

31 mars 2019 | 126 min

Chemical storage facilities exist all over the country and one of them recently caught fire, poisoning the residents Houston, Texas for three days. In this episode, learn about a Department of Homeland Security program - the CFATS program- designed to protect us from terrorist attacks on dangerous chemical storage facilities like the one in Texas and also discover what needs to be done to ensure that CFATS actually protects us from the threats these chemical facilities pose. There is still work to be done. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! House Homeland Security Committee How to Contact: For Senators: [email protected] (underscore between first and last) For Representatives: [email protected] Hearings , House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation, March 12, 2019. 370 views Witnesses: John Morawetz: Health and Safety Representative ICWUC Health and Safety Representatives International Chemical Workers Union Council Dr. Mike Wilson, Ph.D, MPH: National Director, Occupational and Environmental Health Program, BlueGreen Alliance Pamela Nixon: President, People Concerned About Chemical Safety Kirsten Meskill: Director, Corporate Security, BASF Sound Clips: 13:00 Chairman Cedric Richmond (LA): Since CFATS was established, the number of ‘high risk’ chemical facilities has dropped by half. 13:10 Chairman Cedric Richmond (LA) I believe - and DHS agreed - that there is an opportunity to take the data on how facilities are reducing risk and use it to develop voluntary best practices that other facilities could use to reduce risk. 13:20 Chairman Cedric Richmond (LA) Also, it is not clear to me that CFATS facilities are including employees in the development of site security plans, vulnerability assessments, or inspections – as they are required to by law. 13:30 Chairman Cedric Richmond (LA) Finally, if CFATS is going to be successful, we need to be sure that the program is taking all relevant factors into account to assess risk. Otherwise, we can’t trust that CFATS is truly capturing the nation’s highest risk facilities. For example, right now, DHS does not consider whether the facility is located near a hospital, a school, a residential area, a military base, a power plant, or close to other chemical facilities. Any of these factors could make a facility a more attractive target, or make an event even worse for the surrounding community. 21:00 Dr. Mike Wilson: In the area of emergency response, CFATS gives authority to the secretary to provide information to local governments and I quote "to help ensure that first-responders are properly prepared and provided with the situational awareness needed to respond to security incidents at covered chemical facilities," endquote. This is useful but it's not sufficient if the objective is to give firefighters the ability to respond effectively to an industrial chemical incident. As we know from the experience of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA, firefighters need much more than chemical information. They need to talk to the people who run the facilities in their jurisdiction. They need to get inside those facilities regularly to see how chemicals are stored and processed in order to imagine what could go wrong. They need to train side by side with facility operators. This is pre-fire planning and it's crucial to a safe and effective response and it requires an ongoing commitment by industry. That commitment however needs to be explicitly required under CFATS, more so than what is currently recommended within the non mandatory risk based performance standards because the fact is that except in an emergency, many facilities are reluctant to invite firefighters and other responders in to look around their property, let alone to pull out their equipment and conduct training. I speak to this based on my own 13 years of work as a professional firefighter, EMT, and paramedic. During which time I responded to about 10,000 emergency calls including to industrial chemical releases and fires. I can tell you that to do their job, firefighters need both information and access, and they're like, they're more likely to get these if facilities are required to provide them on a routine basis under CFATS. 22:30 Dr. Mike Wilson Our second recommendation pertains to the role of frontline workers in site security. The existing CFATS language on employee input is helpful but too generic to be effective. Depending on the inclinations of the facility, the term employee input can mean everything from a manager checking the box to get workers sign off on a fully executed site security plan, or it could mean a real seat for workers at management's decision making table. In any case, the right of workers to participate meaningfully in site security decision making needs to be explicit in CFATS because just as they are reluctant to give routine access to firefighters, many facilities are reluctant to seriously involve frontline workers in decision making and yet industry itself recognizes that workers have a great deal of knowledge and experience to contribute. We suggest that you consider language from the 2017 process safety management regulations in California, which require oil refineries to involve workers throughout all phases of process safety decision making. If adopted by CFATS this type of language will help ensure that the insights of frontline workers are genuinely integrated into site security. 23:15 Dr. Mike Wilson Finally, our third recommendation pertains to risk reduction. CFATS is based on a risk management framework, which assumes that dangerous chemicals used at a facility cannot be reduced or eliminated, so they have to be surrounded by layers of protection. Industry is far more innovative and clever than this, of course, and DHS has reported that under CFATS, thousands of facilities have voluntarily taken action to reduce their use of dangerous chemicals by consolidating them from multiple sites into one or two sites, replacing a hazardous chemical with a less hazardous one, reducing the total quantity held on site, or switching to a less concentrated form. These approaches can make a facility much safer, and they have the effect of reducing the desirability of the facility as a target of opportunity. CFATS could do more to encourage or require facilities to implement these types of approaches, and we encourage you to make these changes during reauthorization. 36:45 Kirsten Meskill Over the past four years, the Department of Homeland Security has significantly improved it's administration of the CFATS program and has had a positive impact on enhancing security at chemical facilities. 37:30 Kirsten Meskill While industry was pleased that Congress passed the short term extension in January to avoid a complete shutdown of CFATS, I think we all agreed that it is not the best solution going forward. Longer authorization periods provide important stability for planning security investments and allow DHS to operate the program efficiently and effectively. 38:30 Kirsten Meskill Recently, DHS has been implementing a risk based performance standard at 200 high risk facilities, those that are at tiers one and two. This requires facility operation operators to collect sensitive personal information from thousands of employees and contractors for DHS to vet against the terrorist screening database. DHS is now planning to extend the program to an additional 3000 low risk tier three and four facilities. This will expand vetting to tens of thousands of more employees and contractors. ACC and its members are concerned that was such an expansion is unnecessary and will put personal information at risk. Furthermore, it is unclear what benefit is associated with the additional vetting given the cost. 58:30 Kirsten Meskill At BASF, and I think at many of the companies of our size, many of our facilities, we have worked to reduce our risk. And so we are now down to either three or four tier levels. And so, as I mentioned earlier, this is an enormous number of folks that we have to do the additional screening on, but perhaps the more complicated would be the contractors and visitors that we have on site. And that's where it gets a little bit, a lot more complicated to ensure that all those individuals that are coming onto our site day in, day out, have gone through the screening process. And it's costly. It's very expensive, needless to say for us, as well as for the contractors that support us. 1:07:30 Kirsten Meskill: Our concerns are exposing personal data of thousands more thousands and thousands and thousands of employees and contractors for this terrorist database screening. And whether the value actually is there for the cost and for the, the potential risk of exposing this personal data to cybersecurity risks. Rep. Kathleen Rice (NY): But don't you think that's one of the core ways to ensure security at these facilities? Meskill: Well, we are conducting our own background screening anyway, which includes, you know, criminal background checks also. So it seems duplicative. Yes. Rep. Rice: So have you communicated that? Meskill: Yes. Rep. Rice: And are there any questions that they include in their review or their background check that you do not? Meskill: I cannot answer that question. I don't know the answer to that. Rep. Rice: Okay. Thank you. Mr Chairman. , House Committee on Homeland Security, February 27, 2019. 649 Views Witnesses: David Wulf: Director, Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security Nathan Anderson: Acting Director, Homeland Security & Justice, US Government Accountability Office Sound Clips: 2:30 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Through CFATS, DHS works with chemical facility owners and operators to make sure they have safeguards in place to prevent a bad actor from gaining access to dangerous chemicals stored onsite. In the past, this program has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support on and off the Hill. Officials in the Bush Administration, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, were among the first to call for a federal rule to secure chemical facilities. And, officials from the Trump Administration are among the most recent. Last November, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wrote to Congress urging us to reauthorize CFATS: “[W]e continue to face one of the most serious terrorist threat environments since 9/11. Foreign terrorist organizations are urging recruits to use simple weapons, including toxic chemicals, to target public spaces and events.”Clearly, this threat has not abated. Yet, the Department’s authority to carry out CFATS came very close to lapsing last month that caused this Committee to pass a short-term bill extending the program until 2020. For eight years, CFATS was tied to annual appropriations cycles. Lacking the certainty of a multi-year authorization, DHS struggled to keep staff, develop long-term policies, and work with a regulated community that did not know if the rules would apply the following year. In 2014, Congress worked on a bicameral, bipartisan basis to finally put an end to this pattern by passing a multi-year authorization. I had hoped to work collaboratively in the last Congress, as we did in 2014, to give CFATS a long-term reauthorization. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass, and we once again found ourselves with no alternative but to pass another short-term extension. As Chairman, I do not intend to let that happen again. 5:30 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Six years ago, there was a fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas that caused catastrophic damage and took the lives of first responders who had been called to the scene. On the screen above you is a picture of that scene where volunteer firemen went to that location not knowing what they were going to and they lost their lives. So we need to close that loophole because as a volunteer fireman myself, those public spirited first responders did not know what they were going to until it was too late. So if CFATS had been in place those individuals probably, given the information available, would not have approached it in the same light. 6:45 Rep. Mike Rogers (AL): Now, before I begin, I would like to express my extreme disappointment that the majority staff denied the minority's requests for a witness at today's hearing. Under rule 11 of the rules of the house, the minority is afforded at least one witness at each committee hearing. If denied a witness, the minority is entitled to a separate hearing to take testimony from its witnesses. So pursuant to rules of the house, I'm providing the chairman with a letter signed by the Republican members of the community, formerly invoking our right to a separate hearing of the full committee to hear from minority witnesses. 8:40 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Consistent with the rules that we adopted for this committee, similar to the rules we've had before, we offered a government witness to this government panel and from my understanding, that was not accepted. But you could have had a government witness and we will respond in writing, but the rules we apply are the same rules that this committee has always operated under. 18:30 Nathan Anderson: I will speak first to the department's efforts to identify high risk chemical facilities. Just identifying the universe of facilities that should even be regulated under CFATS has been and may always be a huge challenge. There's no one complete data source of facilities that have chemicals. In 2014 we found that DHS used self reported and unverified data to determine the risk of facilities holding toxic chemicals that could threaten surrounding communities if released. We recommended that DHS should better verify the accuracy of facility reported data. Dhs implemented this recommendation by revising its methodology so it now calculates the risk of toxic release rather than relying on facilities to do so. 20:15 Nathan Anderson: A key quality assurance function involves actions to ensure compliance. And in 2015 we reported that DHS had conducted compliance inspections at 83 of the roughly 1700 facilities with approved security plans. At that time, we found that nearly half of the respective facilities were not fully compliant with their approved security plans and the DHS did not have documented procedures for managing facilities compliance. We recommended that DHS document procedures for managing compliance. As a result, DHS revise CFATS procedures, which we are currently reviewing to determine if they sufficiently document the processes being used to track on compliant facilities and ensure facilities implement plan measures as outlined in their security plans. On a positive note, DHS recently told us that they have conducted more than 2000 compliance inspections. 23:00 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): You saw the picture on the screen earlier about the 12 first responders in West, Texas who unfortunately lost their lives because they were basically responding to an incident that we could possibly cover under CFATS. Now the law requires DHS to share such information as is necessary so Mr. Anderson, you indicated in your testimony that GAO surveyed first responders and emergency planners last year about whether such critical information is getting shared. Tell us what you found in that survey. Nathan Anderson: Of course. As part of our work, we looked at 13, or interviewed 13 or 15 local emergency planning committees. These committees cover about 373 high risk facilities. And 13 of those 15 local emergency planning committees did not have access to the information in CFATS that could potentially be useful to first responders and emergency planners. 27:30 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): So the majority of the information that was available just was not being shared. Nathan Anderson: I think it's a situation of access. DHS has stood up something called the IP Gateway, which is a forum and a vehicle for communicating that kind of information to first responders. I think this is a situation where the first responders either did not have access or were not familiar with how to use the IP Gateway system. Rep. Thompson: So Mr. Wulf, can you provide the committee with, what do you see as the way forward in this respect? David Wulf: Absolutely, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. So obviously, sharing of information with first responders is of the utmost importance and it's something that we highly prioritize as a result. Those who may be called upon to respond to incidents at facilities, high risk facilities or other facilities holding chemicals, need information about those facilities. They need information about the chemical holdings so they know what they are walking into when they attempt to save lives and property. So we have redoubled our efforts over the past couple of years to reach to local emergency planning committees. In fact, in 2018 we visited more than 800 of those local emergency planning committees and we are right now in the midst of a push to reach committees, emergency planning committees, associated with the highest populations CFATS covered facilities in the various counties, the top 25% of those counties across the country. I think another important thing to remember is that CFATS and our chemical security inspectors across the country promote sharing of information with first responders and do that in a way that connects them directly with the facilities. So one of the CFATS risk based performance standards, RPBS nine, was focused on response and it requires that every high risk facility reach out to make contact with their local first responders. And in many cases, our inspectors - our CFATS team - facilitates that contact and that communication. So I think that is another important way in which we are continuing to get the word out and we're pushing, as well, information about that IP Gateway and signing more and more folks up every day to give them access to the portal. Rep. Thompson: Before I lose my time, you know, there was this requirement that at least 25% that you referenced in your comments would be done by the end of March. Where are you percentage wise with hitting that target? Wulf: We're on track to have that done by the end of March. Rep. Thompson: And after that, what's the next target? Wulf: We will continue, you know, circling back and we have, we have met with literally thousands of local emergency planning committees and we're committed to continuing to, to ride that circuit and to ensure that relevant folks, those who have a need to know information about chemical facilities and chemical holdings because they may be called to run into those facilities, have the information. Rep. Thompson: Well, the reason I say that, as I look at the membership of the committee present, a lot of us represent volunteer fire departments in our respective districts. So I think it's really incumbent upon us to push this information out to those departments so that those first responders - who are unpaid doing their civic duty - would not be put at risk simply because the information that's available is not being shared. Can you give the committee some kind of a guesstimate as to when the process can be completed? Wulf: Well, I would say that it's going to be an ongoing, kind of continuing effort. I don't think we will ever stop the outreach, but we will get through those 25%, sort of highest density counties in the next month. I would, I would suspect that, you know, toward the end of this calendar year, we will have gotten to most of the other LEPCs across the country as well. 45:00 Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (NM): In the questions that Chairman Thompson asked, we, I'm glad to hear the DHS is on track for the March 2019 a deadline for doing the outreach to the, uh, high risk chemical facilities. Does that information sharing, uh, include the specific chemical holdings stored, uh, on the sites that the first responders will be responding to? David Wulf: Yes, it does. So first responders who have a facility in their sort of area of jurisdiction can have access and we want them to have access to that information. 47:30 Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (NM): We also discussed a little bit the outreach that's done to employees of facility plans, so the training and exercise and drills that are done, but also limiting access on a need to know basis. I'd like to know a little bit about the input requirement, that there's a requirement to get input from at least one employee, where applicable, or a labor union representative in forming the facility plan. Do inspectors confirm that that input requirement has been complied with? David Wulf: Inspectors will raise that issue during an inspection and will hear from facilities to what extent they have involved employees and or as, as kind of relevant, resident bargaining unit members in the process. So, yup, those discussions happen during inspections. Rep. Torres Small: Are inspectors required to speak with those employees or union representatives? Wulf: It is not a requirement. Rep. Torres Small: And if it is determined, even if they're not speaking with the employees or labor unions that there was not an employee or labor union representative consulted, does that result in disapproving of the security plan? Wulf: It does not. It does not. We sort of leave to the discretion of those who are responsible for the security of the facility, the extent to which it actually is practical to involve, you know, however many employees in the process. Rep. Torres Small: Even though the CFATS Act requires that input? Wulf Well, the CFATS Act talks about involvement to the extent practical. Rep. Torres Small: Thank you. 55:00 Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): I'm from Michigan and we have a large number of these facilities including two in my district and then just outside my district, in Detroit, we had a big chemical fire in years past. So this one's really of interest to my community. I'm guessing my first question, Mr. Wulf is just on accountability. So how would a member of Congress know after March whether the facilities in his or her district have communicated effectively with local law enforcement that there's a shared understanding of kind of the risks? Like how would I know that after March? David Wulf: Are you talking about the communication with the first responders? Rep. Slotkin: Yeah. Because we had this Detroit fire years ago, years ago, but my understanding is we did not have full awareness by the first responders and we didn't lose anyone, but it certainly was a potential risk. So how would I feel comfort that my local responders have been informed with what they need? Wulf: So I think, um, I can tell you with confidence that all facilities within the CFATS program, all facilities covered by CFATS, will have made connections with their relevant local first responders. It is a, it is a requirement of the of the program. It is the focus of one of our risk based performance standards - number nine of 18. It is something that we verify and facilitate, so you can rest assured that that is happening across the 3,300 highest risk chemical facilities and their relevant first responders across the country. 59:30 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Mr. Wulf, can you provide the committee with how many actions you've brought on facilities inspected that have been found in noncompliance? David Wulf: Sure. And I guess it's kind of a two part answer because of the way the CFATS program and our enforcement processes work. Of course, you know, we strive to work with facilities to bring them into a compliance and by and large facilities have done a good job and are in compliance with their plans. In upwards of 80 cases we have had to resort to our enforcement authorities and to issue, um, a, an administrative order that per the law, um, gives facilities a certain amount of time, um, to get their act together and, and, uh, alleviate whatever the issue might be. We've gotten to the point with five facilities where we have had to issue a civil monetary penalty. Uh, and that has proven in those cases to be the additional impetus facilities needed to come into compliance. Rep. Thompson: So everybody's in compliance. Wulf: Everybody is currently in compliance. We have, you know, it's, this is a dynamic population, right? So facilities are in different stages of perhaps working on their site security plans, getting them to approval. But facilities against which we have been forced and issued civil penalties have come into compliance. 1:00:15 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): Those two facilities in Ms. Slotkin's district, is there a directory that she can go to or is there a way that she can get with you and you can say these two facilities are compliant? David Wulf: Yes, absolutely. If they're CFATS facilities we're glad to sit down and talk through what exists. Rep. Thompson: That was really what she was trying to get to. Wulf: We're glad to get you that information and talk. Rep. Thompson: Thank you. 1:04:00 Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX): Director Wulf, back to you. Should the risk based performance standards be modified to reflect the evolving threat from drones or other unmanned aerial vehicles? David Wulf: Yeah, so the, uh, the drones question, uh, is a, is an important one for sure. And it is a continually evolving sort of threat vector. Uh, I think as they stand the risk based performance standards, uh, account for and we certainly engage with facilities, um, on the reporting of significant incidents. Uh, and we do take in, um, you know, a decent number of reports associated with overflight or flights nearby, high risk chemical facilities of unmanned aircraft aircraft system. So I think we have the tools in place from an incident reporting standpoint. Um, our counterparts at the Federal Aviation Administration I know are working toward a broader framework, uh, and we are working with them on that for critical infrastructure. Rep. Crenshaw: Because it's prohibited under federal law to, to, to interfere with the operation of a drone right now. So is that, is that part of the conversation? I mean, to allow essentially facilities to defend themselves. Is that conversation ongoing?. Wulf: That is probably a part of the broader conversation for sure. And you know, it's, it's an issue that, um, that we had the department are, um, are looking at, not just from a chemical facility angle, but across all critical infrastructure, uh, infrastructure sectors. 1:08:30 Rep. Val Demings (FL): Mr. Wulf, my questions are for you. When DHS is considering whether a facility is high risk, do you include in that methodology or whatever process you use, would you factor in if the facility would be located to a elementary school for example, or a nursing home or hospital? David Wulf: Yes, so we factor in - it's a good question - we tier for a couple of major different threat streams, one of which focused on theft and diversion of chemicals, the other which is focused on facilities where there could be a release into a surrounding community. In those cases of release, we absolutely factor in the surrounding population. One of the things we were able to make some significant headway on, as we kind of basked in the stability that was afforded by long term authorization, was a complete retooling of our risk assessment methodology. So we're now more accurately able to model those surrounding populations and tier more accurately. Rep. Demings: Also studies show that chemical facilities tend to be concentrated in low income and minority communities. In determining facility risks, does DHS consider whether a facility is in close proximity to other chemical facilities that could exacerbate the impact of an attack on an already vulnerable population? Wulf: We certainly consider what is in the surrounding area by way of, by way of population as we do our tiering. Rep. Demings: And so when you consider the proximity to those populations, those low income already very vulnerable areas, what do you factor into? What is it exactly that you were considering or looking at? Wulf: Well, we are considering where the population is located in proximity to a facility and we are kind of modeling, you know, were there to be an incident that caused a release of chemicals, what part of that population would be impacted and what number of fatalities could potentially occur as we're thinking about the tiering. Rep. Demings: Okay. So when you say where the population is located, what exactly does that mean? Could you help me with that? Wulf: It means like how many people are located either, you know, during the day or at night in their homes and their businesses and in the schools and how close they are to the facility and then we look at what type of chemical we're talking about, what quantities of chemicals we're talking about, what the prospect is for release of those chemicals, what quantity could be released. And then there's sort of a plume modeling effort designed to get us to a place where we can kind of model what the consequences would be of a release of chemicals caused by a terrorist. 1:30:30 Rep. Max Rose (NY): Moving on in terms of the voluntary participation of the private sector, it seems as if this is actually a great case in which we have been very successful in that regard. What type of lessons learned can we draw out of this to transfer it to issues of cybersecurity, general counter terrorism.... Where we have to involve the private sector but we're often struggling to get them to come forward? What type of lessons learned can we glean from this? David Wulf: In this case, we do have a regulatory framework, so there's, you know, there's an obligation for facilities and companies that operate facilities that have threshold quantities of chemicals of interest in our regulation to report information to us and if they're assessed as high risk, to be part of the program, to develop site security plans and be subjected to inspections. But I would say that on a purely voluntary basis, the chemical industry writ large, and that cuts across a variety of critical infrastructure sectors, has been fully committed and bought in to this program and has helped us to drive forward key improvements to the program. So one of the ways that happens is through something we call the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council Framework. So we bring together, sector councils, of chemical industry or as the case may be, oil and natural gas industry folks, to talk about ways in which we can continue to enhance our respective critical infrastructure protection and or chemicals security efforts and I do think that is a good model and it's one that the department is also using on the cybersecurity front and across other… Rep. Rose: I take it that the best model in this case was that this was mandatory with private sector involvement. That was the pathway to success then. Wulf: The regulatory framework I think has, has helped for sure. Rep. Rose: Thank you. 1:40:30 David Wulf: CFATS is focused, you know, I think appropriately as a risk based program, and it's targeted at America's highest risk facilities. So those facilities at the highest risk of terrorist attack or or exploitation, that's less than 10% of the facilities that submit top screens for risk assessment by us. 1:42:00 David Wulf: Well, you know, CFATS is a non prescriptive program. We can't require any specific measures. 1:48:30 Rep. Al Green (TX): The CFATS Act of 2014, which requires DHS to create an experimental new program. DHS has performed diligently and the program has been implemented and it seems that as of June 2018 only 18 facilities have taken advantage of this program. And my query is, does it make good sense to keep a program that appeals to 18 facilities? I'm sure that there are some other projects that merit our attention. There are some other goals that we should review in the area of Cybersecurity, first responder outreach, and DHS probably has a lot of energy that it has put into this, that may have been used otherwise. So quickly, if you would please give me some sense of why a program that has accommodated 18 facilities at some, some great expense should be maintained. David Wulf: I appreciate the remarks and that is a fair question. You're referring to the expedited approval program that enables, on an expedited basis, the certification of facility security plans where those facilities adhere to a prescriptive list of security measures. I think it is fair to say, as you noted, that a very small number of facilities have taken advantage - have availed themselves of the program. Rep. Green: If I may, just so that we may understand the size of the language. When you say "small", how many could have taken advantage of it and juxtapose that to the number that have. Wulf: Yeah. So it applies to three, tier three and four facilities, so that would be 90% of our regulated universe could have taken advantage. So upwards of 2,500 facilities could have. Rep. Green: And of the 2,500, 18…? Wulf: 18 have. Yes. I think some of that owes itself to the fact that most facilities were well through the process of developing their site security plans a through the normal process at the time the expedited approval program was rolled out, though we certainly, you know, did our best to publicize it's availability and the fact that most facilities appreciate the contact that they're able to have with inspectors throughout the normal process of developing their site security plan. It tends to improve those plans. So, you know, although we've had a few additional facilities since the reach hearing of facilities occurred within the last couple of years that have availed themselves of the program, the overall number is very small. And the fact of the matter is that our online system through which facilities develop their SSPs is now significantly more streamlined, significantly more user friendly, so this is certainly less incentive to use this other program. Rep. Green: I don't mean to be rude and unrefined but I have to ask him because I have another question. Is it time to review this other program so that we can ascertain whether or not it is something that we should continue with? Wulf: I would say yes, certainly time to, to take a hard look at it. Green: Okay. 1:51:30 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO): Because the EPA no longer updates a list of the locations these facilities, chemical facilities, it's difficult for me to just pinpoint exactly where they are. 1:57:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS): A couple of takeaways. Mr. Wulf, I think based on what I heard, I think it would help us if you could provide us a with a master list of the facilities that have been regulated. I think that would help a lot. Sound Clip Sources Article: , The Intercept, March 27, 2019. News Report: , KHOU 11, March 25, 2019. News Release: , CSB, March 21, 2019. News Report: , KHOU 11 Investigates, March 19, 2019. Video: , KTBC Fox 7 Austin, April 18, 2013. Video: , Alertpage, YouTube, April 18, 2013. Music Video Clip: by Marvin Gaye, Vlipsy. Additional Reading Report: , OSHA Regional Notice, U.S. Department of Labor, October 1, 2018. Article: by J.B. Smith, Waco Tribune-Herald, April 16, 2018. News: , Roberts Law Group News, Chemical Security Gropu LLC, December 27, 2017. Report: , CSB, January 29, 2016. Article: by Stuart Tomlinson, The Oregonian/Oregon Live, April 25, 2013. Report: by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 23, 2013. Resources BASF: H.R.251: H.R.4007: Homeland Security: Homeland Security: Homeland Security: Homeland Security: Homeland Security Publication: , May 2009. GovInfo.gov: , Federal Register, December 27, 2017. LinkedIn Profile: Website: Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD192: Democracy Upgrade Stalled

15 mars 2019 | 87 min

Things often don’t go according to plan. In this episode, featuring a feverish and frustrated Jen Briney, learn about the shamefully rushed process employed by the Democrats to pass their top priority bill, H.R. 1, through the House of Representatives. Executive Producer: Anonymous from Washington Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD129: Bill Outline: - Official title: “To expand American’s access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.” Short Title: For the People Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. John Sarbanes (MD-3) First co-sponsor: Nancy Pelosi Referred to 10 committees: House Administration House Intelligence (Permanent Select) House Judiciary House Oversight and Government Reform House Science, Space, and Technology House Education and the Workforce House Ways and Means House Financial Services House Ethics House Homeland Security Subtitle A: Voter Registration Modernization “Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2019" Part 1: Promoting Internet Registration : Every State Has to Allow Us To Register to Vote Online Requires every State to allow residents to register to vote online and be given an online receipt of their completed voter registration application Signatures can be electronic as long as the individual has a signature on file with a State agency, including the DMV. People who don’t have signatures on file can submit handwritten signatures through digital means or sign in person on Election Day. Signatures will be required on Election Day for people who registered to vote online and have not previously voted in a Federal election in that state. : Every State Has To Allow Us To Update Our Registration Online States must allow registered voters to update their registrations online too : Voter Information Online Instead Of Regular Mail Tells states to include a space for voters to submit an email address and get voting information via email instead of using regular mail (we may need that to be “in addition to”) Prohibits our emails from being given to anyone who is outside the government. The State will have to provide people who opted for emails, at least 7 days before the election, online information including the name and address of the voter’s polling place, that polling place’s hours, and which IDs the voter may need to vote at that polling place. : 'Valid Voter Registration' Form Definition Defines what is a “valid voter registration form”: The form is accurate and the online applicant provided a signature. : Effective Date: January 1, 2020. Part 2: Automatic Voter Registration “Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2019" : Automatic Registration of Eligible Voters Every State will have to create and operate a system for automatically registering everyone eligible to vote “for Federal office in the State”. The States will have 15 days to register a person to vote after getting updated voter information from another agency. : "Voter Protection and Security in Automatic Registration" Declining automatic registration can’t be used as evidence “In any State or Federal law enforcement proceeding" States will have to keep records of all changes to voter records, including removals and updates, for 2 years and make those available for public inspection. Gives the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology the power to write the rules for how States can use voter information to deem a person ineligible and to write privacy and security standards for voter registration information Voter registration information “shall not be used for commercial purposes.” : Corrections to Voter Information Can Be Done on Election Day Voters in all States would be able to update their address, name, or political party affiliation in person on Election Day, and they could vote using the corrected information using a regular ballot, not a provisional ballot. : The Federal Government Will Pay to Make The Changes Authorizes $500 million for 2019, available until it’s gone. : Effective Date - January 1, 2021 Part 3: Same Day Voter Registration : Voters Can Register At the Polling Place On Election Day System would have to be in place by November 2020 Part 4: Conditions on Removal on Basis of Interstate Cross-Checks : Requirements To Use Cross Check To Remove Voters Prohibits States from using interstate crosscheck systems to remove people from voter rules until the State receives the voter’s full name, including their middle name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of their social security numbers and if the State has documentation verifying the voter is no longer a resident of the State. Interstate cross checks can not be used to remove voters from rolls within six months of an election Effective date: Six months after enactment Part 7: Prohibiting Interference with Voter Registration : Fines and Prison For Interference in Voter Registration People who prevent another person from registering to vote, or attempt to prevent another person from registering, “shall be fined” or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Effective date: Elections on or after enactment Subtitle B: Access to Voting for Individuals With Disabilities Subtitle C: Prohibiting Voter Caging : Prohibits Removal of Names Based Solely on Caging Lists State/local election officials will not be allowed to deny a voter registration if the decision is based on a voter caging document, an unverified match list, or an error on a registration that is not material to the citizen’s eligibility to vote. Challenges to voter registration by non-election officials will only be allowed if the person has personal knowledge documented in writing and subject to an attestation under penalty of perjury. Penalties for knowingly challenging the eligibility of someone else’s voter registration with the intent to disqualify that person is punishable by a fine and/or one year in prison for each violation. Subtitle D : Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation - “Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019" : Prohibits Lying To Prevent People From Voting Makes it illegal to communicate by any means false information regarding the time and place of an election, the voter’s registration status or eligibility, or criminal penalties for voting within 60 days of an election if the communication has the intent of preventing another person from voting. Makes it illegal, within 60 days of an election, to communicate by any means false information regarding an endorsement by a person or political party that didn’t actually happen. Penalties: A fine of up to $100,000, five years in prison, or both. The penalties are the same for attempts to lie to people to prevent them from voting. Subtitle E: Democracy Restoration - “Democracy Restoration Act of 2019" : Voting Rights Extend to Ex-Cons “The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election." : Effective for any election held after enactment Subtitle F: Promoting Accuracy, Integrity, and Security Through Verified Permanent Paper Ballot - “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2019” : Requires Paper Ballots for All Federal Elections Requires all voting systems to use individual paper ballots that are verified by the voter before their vote is cast which “shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device” The paper ballots must be preserved as the official ballots and will be counted by hand for recounts and audits If there is a difference between the electronic vote count and the hand count of paper ballots, the hand count of paper ballots will be the final count. Subtitle H: Early Voting : Every State Must Allow Early Voting for 15 Days Every State will be required to allow citizens to vote in Federal elections during the 15 days preceding the election, with polls open for at least 4 hours per day except on Sundays. Effective Date: Elections after January 1, 2020 Subtitle I: Voting by Mail : Vote By Mail National Standards States can’t count absentee ballots until they match the signature on the ballot to the signature on the State’s official list of registered voters States must provide ballots and voting materials at least 2 weeks before the election Effective date: Elections held on or after January 1, 2020 Subtitle J: Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters Subtitle K: Poll Worker Recruitment and Training : Federal Employees As Poll Workers Employees of Federal agencies will be allowed to be excused from work for up to 6 days in order to work in polling places on Election Day and for training. Subtitle L: Enhancement of Enforcement Subtitle M: Federal Election Integrity : Head of Elections Can’t Campaign for Elections They Oversee It will be illegal for a chief State election administration official to take part in a political campaign “with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority” Subtitle N: Promoting Voter Access Through Election Administration Improvements : Notification for Polling Place Changes States must notify voters at least seven days in advance if the State has changed their polling place to somewhere other than where they last voted Effective January 1, 2020 : Election Day Holiday The Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2020 and each even-numbered year after that will be treated as a legal public holiday Encourages, but does not require, the private sector to give their workers the day off for elections : Sworn Written Statements to Meet ID Requirements If a State requires an ID to vote, a person may vote if they provide, in person, a sworn written statement signed under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity and that they are eligible to vote, unless they are first time voters in the State. Effective for elections occurring on or after enactment : Postage Free Ballots Absentee ballots will not require postage The Post Office will be reimbursed by States for the lost revenue Subtitle E: Redistricting Reform - “Redistricting Reform Act of 2019” : Independent Commissions for Redistricting Congressional redistricting must be done by an independent redistricting commission established in the State or by a plan development and enacted into law by a 3 judge court of the US District Court for the District of Columbia : Creating the Independent Redistricting Commissions The Commissions will be made up of 15 members from the “selection pool” (see Sec. 2412) 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the second most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 who are not affiliated with the two largest political parties The Chair must be a member of the group that is not affiliated with the largest two parties in the State and will be selected via a majority vote of the commission The State can not finalize a redistricting plan unless the plan gets a vote from someone in each of the three membership categories and it passes with a majority of the commission voting yes. Contractors for the commission can be required to provide their political contribution history : Eligibility for the Independent Commission “Selection Pool” To qualify, the individual must... Be registered to vote Either be with the same political party or with no political party for the previous 3 years Submits an application including a declaration of their political party, if they belong to one, and a commitment to impartiality. An individual is disqualified if the individual or an immediate family member within the 5 years preceding their appointment... Holds public office or is a candidate for public office Serves as an officer of a political party or as a political party consultant Is a registered lobbyist Is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the legislature of a State, or a donor who gives more than $20,000 to candidates for public offices. The selection pool will have 36 individuals made up of... 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the second largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals who are not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties The selection pool must be approved by the State’s Select Committee on Redistricting Inaction is a rejection of the selection pool : Criteria for New Districts Districts must be created using this criteria in this order: Districts must comply with the Constitution, including the requirement that the equalize total population Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act and all Federal laws Districts can’t be drawn in a way that dilutes the ability for minority communities to elect candidates Districts must minimize the division of neighborhoods, counties, municipalities, and school districts “to the extent practicable” Districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor any political party The commission may not consider the political party affiliation or voting history of the district’s population or the resident of any member of the House of Representatives when drawing the district maps All meetings must be held in public, must take comments into consideration and they must publish information, including video archives, about their meetings on a public website : Authorizes payments to States of $150,000 per district to help pay for the redistricting process Subtitle F: Saving Voters from Voter Purging -“Stop Automatically Voiding Eligible Voters Off Their Enlisted Rolls in States Act” - “Save Voters Act” : Restricting Voter Roll Purges States can’t use the failure of a voter to vote or the voter’s failure to respond to a notice as the basis for removing their name from the voter rolls Subtitle A: Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Part 1: Voting System Security Improvement Gains Part 2: Grants for Risk-Limiting Audits of Results of Elections Part 3: Election Infrastructure Innovation Grant Program Subtitle B: Security Measures Subtitle C: Enhancing Protections for United Stated Democratic Institutions Subtitle D : Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration Subtitle E: Preventing Election Hacking Division B: Campaign Finance Subtitle B: DISCLOSE Act - “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” Part 1: Regulation of Certain Political Spending : Foreign Owned Corporations Count as “Foreign Nationals” Makes it illegal for a corporation, LLC, or partnership which is more than 5% owned by a foreign government or 20% owned by foreign individual to directly or indirectly make a contribution in connection with a Federal, State, or local election or a contribution to a political party. It’s also illegal for Americans to accept or solicit a contribution from “foreign nationals” (amends ) Effective 180 days after enactment, regardless of if regulations are done Part 2: Reporting of Campaign-Related Disbursements Sec. 4111: Corporations Must Report Donations Any corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization (other than 501(c)3 “charities”) that make campaign contributions totaling more than $10,000 in the 2 year election cycle must file a statement containing the name of the donating organization, the business address, a list of that business or corporations’ controlling owners, and the name/address of the person who received each donation of more than $1,000. If the corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization pays for a public communication, they must report the name of any candidate identified and whether the communication was in support or opposition to that candidate. Subtitle C: Honest Ads - “Honest Ads Act” : Disclosure of Sources of Online Political Ads Extends political ad disclosure laws to internet and other digital communication : Disclosures Must Be Clear Ads must include a statement telling us the name of the person who paid for the communication in a way that is not difficult to read or hear : Public Record of Online Political Ads * Requires online platforms to create and make available online for public inspection a complete record of requests to purchase political advertisements if they purchase more than $500 worth in one calendar year Subtitle D : Stand by Every Ad - “Stand By Every Ad Act" Subtitle E: Secret Money Transparency : IRS Can Investigate Dark Money Groups Again Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the IRS that prevented them from making sure tax exempt organizations aren’t using their funds for political expenditures Subtitle F: Shareholder Right-to-Know : SEC Can Enforce Shareholder Disclosure Laws Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the Securities and Exchange Commission that prevented them from enforcing laws related to corporations informing shareholders about the corporations political activity. Subtitle G: Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors : Contractors Can Be Forced to Disclose Donations Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress that prevented requiring government contractors to report their political spending Subtitle H: Limitation and Disclosure Requirements for Presidential Inaugural Committees - “Presidential Inaugural Committee Oversight Act" Subtitle B: Congressional Elections - “Government By the People Act of 2019” Part 1: My Voice Voucher Pilot Program : Voucher Pilot Program The Federal Election Commission will create an pilot program and select 3 states to operate it : Pilot Program Details State’s will provided individuals who request one a “My Voice Voucher" worth $25 Individuals can give their voucher dollars, in $5 increments, to qualified candidates for Congress. Part 2: Small Dollar Financing of Congressional Election Campaigns : 6x Matching of Small Dollar Donations Payments will be 600% of the amount of small dollar contributions received by the candidate during the Small Dollar Democracy qualifying period Small dollar contribution is between $1 and $200 Limit: The total amount of payments made to a candidate may not be more than 50% of the average of the “20 greatest amounts of disbursements made by the authorized committees of any winning candidate for the office of Representatives in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress during the most recent election cycle, rounded to the nearest $100,000.” Candidates can get an additional payment of up to $500,000 during the period between 60 days and 14 days before the election, which doesn’t count towards the total limit. Candidates are eligible if they can get 1,000 people to make a small dollar contribution and if the candidate can raise at least $50,000. Eligible candidates can’t take more than $1,000 total from any individual. Eligible candidates can’t use more than $50,000 in personal funds. Will be funded by a “" : Coordination with Parties : Effective starting in 2024 elections Subtitle C: Presidential Elections - “Empower Act of 2019" Part 1: Primary Elections Part 2: General Elections Part 3: Effective Date Subtitle D : Personal Use Services as Authorized Campaign Expenditures - “Help America Run Act” Subtitle A: Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections : Changes to FEC make up Subtitle B: Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Division C: Ethics Subtitle B: Foreign Agents Registration : New Department of Justice Investigation Unit Will be dedicated to enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act Subtitle C: Lobbying Disclosure Reform : Expands Definition of “Lobbyist” To include people who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services, research, and other background work” as lobbyists in terms of disclosure requirements Effective upon enactment Subtitle D : Recusal of Presidential Appointees : Recusal of Appointees Any officer or employee appointed by the President must recuse themselves from any matter involving the President who appointed the officer or employee or that President’s spouse. Subtitle A: Executive Branch Conflict of Interest : Prohibits Private Sector Payments for Entering Government Private companies can’t provide bonus payments, pensions, retirement, group life/health/accident insurance, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other payments contingent on accepting a position in the U.S. Government. : Slowing the Revolving Door Executive Branch employees can’t use their government position to “participate in a particular matter” if they know a company they worked for in the last two years has a financial interest. Penalty: Fine and/or 1 year in prison. Penalty for willful violation: Fine and/or up to 5 years in prison Civil penalties: The greater of $100,000 per violation or the amount the person received or was offered for conducting the violation : Waiting Period For Procurement Officers To Work for Contractors A former official responsible for a government contract can not accept payments from any division, affiliate, or subcontractor of the chosen contractor for 2 years after awarding the contract. A government employee can not award a contract to his or her former employer for 2 years after they leave the company. : Lobbying Job Waiting Period Senior level Executive Branch employees have to wait 2 years before they can be paid to influence their former colleagues Subtitle B: Presidential Conflicts of Interest Subtitle C: White House Ethics Transparency Subtitle D : Executive Branch Ethics Enforcement Subtitle E: Conflicts for Political Fundraising : Disclosure of Certain Types of Contributions People who are nominated to high level Executive Branch offices will have to disclose their contributions to political organizations, 501(c)4’s, and 501(c)6’s. Subtitle F: Transition Team Ethics Subtitle G: Ethics Pledge for Senior Executive Branch Employees Subtitle A: Requiring members of Congress to Reimburse Treasury for Amounts Paid as Settlements and Awards Under Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Subtitle B: Conflicts of Interest : Members Can’t Be on For-Profit Boards of Directors Changes the House Rules so that members of the House of Representatives will not be allowed to serve on the board of "any for-profit entity" while serving in the House of Representatives. : Prohibition Above Can Be Changed via House Rules Subtitle C: Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure - “Connecting Lobbying and Electeds for Accountability and Reform Act” “CLEAR Act" : Separate Reports for Lobbyist Donations Report submitted by political campaigns will have to report which donations are made by registered lobbyists in a separate statement (amends ) : Effective 90 Days After Enactment Subtitle D : Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports : Online Portal for Congressionally Mandated Reports Portal will create, within one year of enactment, an online portal providing free public digital access to all congressionally mandated reports Reports will be available within 30 days of their submission to Congress : Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Return Disclosure Requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit their tax returns for the last 10 taxable years to the Federal Election Commission within 15 days of declaring their candidacy The chairman of the Federal Election Commission must make the candidates’ tax returns, with personal information redacted, publicly available Effective upon enactment Additional Reading Article: by Lindsey McPherson and Kate Ackley, Roll Call, March 6, 2019. Article: by Lee Fang and Nick Surgey, The Intercept, February 27, 2019. Article: by Zach Montellaro, Politico, February 26, 2019. Markup: , February 26 ,2019. Article: by Ella Nilson, Vox, January 4, 2019. Article: by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, November 9, 2018. Article: by Johnny Kauffman, NPR, October 22, 2018. Article: by Ellen Kurz, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Report: by Jonathan Brater, Kevin Morris, Myrna Pérez, and Christopher Deluzio, Brennan Center for Justice, July 20, 2018. Article: by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 28, 2018. Article: by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, February 20, 2018. Article: by Bill Barrow and Mark Scolforo, AP News, February 6, 2018. Article: by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, October 28, 2017. Article: by Gary Rivlin and Michael Hudson, The Intercept, September 17, 2017. Article: by Daniel McGlone and Esther Needham, Azavea, July 19, 2017. Article: by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, July 6, 2017. Article: by Jeff Stein, Vox, February 3, 2017. Article: by Matt Egan, CNN Business, January 27, 2017. Article: by Editorial Board, The Washington Post, February 19, 2016. Article: by Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets.org, Febraury 12, 2016. Blog: , Wagenmaker & Oberly, December 30, 2015. Article: by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 1, 2015. Article: by Lee Fang, The Nation, May 21, 2013. Article: by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 29, 2012. Article: , NPR, October 11, 2007. Resources Congressional Budget Office: Federal Election Commission: How Stuff Works: Research: Website: Website: Sound Clip Sources Short Film: , RepresentUs, YouTube, February 27, 2019. Full Committee Markup: , Committee on House Administration, February 26, 2019. Hearing: , Committee on House Administration, February 14, 2019. Witnesses: Chiraag Bains - Director of Legal Strategies at Demos Wendy Weiser - Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennen Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law Fred Wertheimer -President of Democracy 21 Kym Wyman - Secretary of State of Washington Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, Senior at Dodge City High School in Kansas and plaintiff in LULAC & Rangel-Lopez v. Cox Peter Earle - Wisconsin Civil Rights Trial Lawyer Brandon Jessup - Data Science and Information Systems Professional and Executive Director at Michigan Forward David Keating - President at the Institute for Free Speech Hearing: , Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 6, 2019. Witnesses: Scott Amey - General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight Karen Hobert Flynn - President of Common Cause Rudy Mehrbani - Spitzer Fellow and Senior Counsel, Brennen Center for Justice Walter Schaub Jr - Senior Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Bradley Smith - Chairman at the Institute for Free Speech Sound Clips: 17:30 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D - MD) Title eight includes a bill that I introduced called the executive branch ethics reform act. It would, it would ban senior officials from accepting "golden parachute" payments from private sector employers in exchange for their government service. This would have prevented Gary Cohn from receiving more than $100 million in accelerated payments from Goldman Sachs while leading the Trump administration's efforts to slash corporate taxes. 19:00 Cummings Title eight also would make clear that Congress expects the president to divest his business holdings just as every single president since Jimmy Carter has done and place them in an independent and truly blind trust. 28:00 Rep. Jim Jordan (R - OH) In 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. 28:30 Jordan Furthermore, this bill would roll back another critical victory for privacy and free speech secured just last summer following efforts by this committee and others, the IRS changed its policy as it relates to schedule B information. Schedule B contains personal information like names, addresses, and the amounts donated to nonprofit entities. Even though this information is supposed to remain private under current law, states and federal government have leaked these personal details in the past. In changing its policies, the IRS noted that there had been at least 14 breaches resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of schedule B information just since 2010. The result was everyday Americans receiving death threats and mail containing white powder. All because someone disagreed with what they believe and who they gave their hard earned money to. 59:00 Walter Schaub HR 1 addresses big payouts to incoming officials. These golden parachutes raise concerns about an employee appointees loyalty to a former employer. When former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew left Wall Street to join the State Department, he received a large bonus in his employment agreement. Let him keep that bonus specifically because he landed at a high level government job. 1:04:00 Bradley Smith Subtitle B of title six is called Stopping Super PAC and candidate coordination. The sponsors and drafters are either being intentionally disingenuous here or are they simply do not understand what has been put into their own legislation. Nothing in subtitle B, nothing limits. It's reached a super PACs. It applies to every union trade association, advocacy group and unincorporated association in the country. It applies to planned parenthood and right to life, to the NAACP and the ACLU to the national federation of Independent Business and to the Brady Campaign for gun safety. It even applies to individual citizens who seek to participate in public discussion. Nothing. This cannot be said often enough limits it to super PACs through the interplay of its definitions of coordination and coordinated spenders. The laws treatment, uh, traditional treatment of coordinated spending as a contribution to a candidate and current contribution limits in the law. Subtitle be, will actually have the effect of banning, not limiting, but actually banning a great deal of speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court's decision in citizens United versus FEC and Buckley v Vallejo. 1:39:00 Smith I would only add that I think that the disclosure provisions are often worse than people think because they're defining as political activity things that have never been defined as political before. And you run the risk of a regulation swallowing up the entire, uh, discourse in which public, uh, engages. So I would only say that I think the provisions are worse than people think and that they're often hidden through the complex interrelationship of different positions. Well, one, one example would be if an organization, uh, for example, were to hire somebody who had previously been an intern, a paid intern for a member of Congress, that organization would then be prohibited from making any communications that were deemed to promote a tax support or oppose a that candidate. And that vague term could apply to almost anything praising the candidate for introducing a bill, uh, criticizing the congressman for opposing a bill, whatever it might be. Jordan Wow. That put the whole consultant business in this town out of business, it seems to me. Smith It's not just the consulting business. Oh, of course. It puts out of business all of the interest groups and all of the civic groups that people belong to. 1:43:00 Cummings One year ago today when my mother's dying bed at 92 years old, former sharecropper, her last words were, do not let them take our votes away from us. They had fought, she had fought and seen people harmed and beaten, trying to vote. Talk about inalienable rights. Voting is crucial, and I don't give a damn how you look at it. There are efforts to stop people from voting. That's not right. This is not Russia. This is the United States of America, and I will fight until the death to make sure every citizen, whether they're Green party, whether they're Freedom Party, whether they're Democrat, whether you're Republican, whoever has that right to vote. 1:46:00 Karen Hobert Flynn Election day registration is a perfect antidote to a purge so that you can show up on election day. If you see that there's a problem, then you can register to vote and vote on that day. 2:19:00 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R - ND) North Dakota is the only state in the country without voter registration. We have voting. We have counties that vote exclusively by mail, and we currently have no excuse, absentee ballot, absentee voting. We have, we allow felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. Um, our poll workers are almost exclusively volunteers across the entire state. So in short, we have the, the best and easiest vote voting, voting booth access in the entire country, and we are incredibly proud of that. 2:23:00 Armstrong North, we, and this might be a little change, but it's really important to the voters in North Dakota. So we, uh, we start our absentee or early voting process, I think for military deployed overseas, it says early as August. And we have, as I said, no excuse absentee ballots. But what we require is that our ballots are postmarked the day before the election. And in North Dakota, we really, really try to make sure the election is over on election day. Um, north Dakotans don't understand how an election can change by 12, 13, 14,000 votes in the two to three weeks after an election day. Now I'm not in the business and telling people in California or somewhere else how to do their voting laws, but that just is something that is not appropriate here. And this would require ballots to be postmarked up until election day, correct? That's correct. 2:24:00 Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) I wish Mr. Meadows were still here because I'm delighted that he's thinking of stepping into the small donor matching system that has proposed an HR 1. Because when you step into that system, you step into a system that is owned by the people. This is why it's in the bill because the public is tired of feeling like their elections, their system, their government, their democracy is owned by special interests, big corporations, Wall Street, oil and gas industry, super PACs, lobbyists, everybody. But then this is the power move. They want to own their democracy again. 2:27:00 Sarbanes Somebody said, why are we hooking all these things together? Voting ethics, campaign finance, because the people have told us, if you just do one and you don't do the others were still frozen out. The system is still rigged. You fix the voting stuff, but if you go to Washington and nobody's behaving themselves, that doesn't solve the problem or you fix the ethics part, but we're still, the system is still owned by the big money in the special interests because they're the ones that are underwriting the campaigns. Then we're still left out. The system is still rigged. You got to do all of these things together to reset the democracy in a place where it respects the average citizen out there. Who right now is sitting in their kitchen, they're looking at the TV screen there. They're hearing about billionaires and super PACs who are making decisions inside conference rooms somewhere on K Street that affect their lives and all they're saying is we want back in. We're tired of sitting out here with our nose is pressed against the window looking in on the democracy that we have no impact on. That's why we're linking all of these things together to reset the table. So the special interests aren't the ones that are calling the shots. 2:29:00 Sarbanes The provisions of transparency in this bill are targeted to mega donors who give more than $10,000 who right now are hidden behind this Russian doll kind of structure where you can't see who it is, who's behind the curtain, who's putting all this money into campaigns. The public wants to know that that's reasonable. 2:38:00 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) And I'm deeply troubled at what appears to be a Russian engagement through 501(c)(4)s in this country, whether it's the NRA or, um, other, uh, nonprofits that are created for the express purpose here in the United States to lobby on behalf of Russia as it related to the Magnitsky Act. Um, so right now there is no limitation on how much money can be contributed by a foreign government entity to a 501(c)(4). Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that is, yes. Speier And there is no disclosure required as well. Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that's right. Speier So in your estimation, would it be prudent for us to one, limit the amount of contributions that a foreign individual can make to a 501(c)(4), and two, that all of that be subject to disclosure? Hobert Flynn Yeah, I think, I think it would be very important. Um, you know, there are limits. There are bans on foreign nationals giving money in campaign contributions, and I think we should be looking at those kinds of limits for, um, and it's certainly disclosure for, um, contributions to 501(c)(4)s. 2:56:00 Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) You hear so much attack on political action committees, PACs, Mr. Smith, or maybe you'd be best one to answer this. I don't know, maybe I don't want us to answer it. Where do political action committees get their money? Smith Political action committees get their money from individuals. Traditional PACs do. Now Super PACS as they're called, can take money from corporations and unions, but they are not able to contribute directly to candidates. Sort of coordinate anything with candidates. Gibbs I appreciate that. Uh, make the point. Um, because I, I got attacked because I take political action money, but it comes from businesses in my district. A lot of it, it comes from associations. You know, everybody has somebody lobbying for them in DC. I mean, if you're, if you're a member, of a retirement association, any organization, you've got a lobbyist here. 2:57:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Let's play a game, let's play a lightening round game. I'm going to be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway. And um, and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interest even if that means putting, uh, putting my interests ahead of the American people. So, um, Mrs Holbert Flynn. Oh, and by the way, I have listed all of you as my co conspirators, so you're going to help me legally get away with all of this. So Mrs Herbert Flynn, I want to run, if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees, is that, is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that? Hobert Flynn No. Ocasio-Cortez Okay. So there's nothing stopping me from being entirely funded by corporate PACs, say from the fossil fuel industry, the healthcare industry, big Pharma. I'm entirely 100% lobbyists PAC funded. Okay. So let's see. I'm a really, really bad guy and let's see, I've have some skeletons in my closet that I need to cover it up so that I can get elected. Um, Mr. Smith, is it true that you wrote this article, this opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled These Payments to Women Were Unseemly? That doesn't mean they were illegal. Smith Well, I can't see the piece but I wrote a piece or that headline in the post's so I assume that's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. So green-light for hush money, I can do all sorts of terrible things. It's totally legal right now for me to pay people off and that is considered speech. That money is considered speech. So I use my special interest, dark money funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off and get elected. So now I'm elected, now I'm in, I've got the power to draft, lobby and shape the laws that govern the United States of America. Fabulous. Now is there any hard limit that I have, perhaps Mrs Herbert Flynn? Is there any hard limit that I have in terms of what legislation I'm allowed to touch? Are there any limits on the laws that I can write or influence? Especially if I'm a based on the special interest funds that I accepted to finance my campaign and get me elected in the first place. Herbert Flynn There's no limit. Ocasio-Cortez So there's none. So I can be totally funded by oil and gas that can be totally funded by big Pharma come in. Right. Big Pharma laws and there's no limits to that whatsoever. Herbert Flynn That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, so awesome. Now, uh, now Mr Mehrabani, the last thing I want to do is get rich with as little work possible. That's really what I'm trying to do as the bad guy. Right? So is there anything preventing me from holding stocks say in an oil or gas company and then writing laws to deregulate that that industry and cause you know, that could potentially cause the stock value to soar and accrue a lot of money in that time, Rudy Mehrbani You could do that. Ocasio-Cortez So I could do that. I could do that. Now with the way our current laws are set up. Yes? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. Okay. So my last question is, or one of my last questions, I guess I'd say is, is it possible that any elements of this story apply to our current government in our current public servants right now? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez So we have a system that is fundamentally broken. We have these influences existing in this body, which means that these influences are here in this committee shaping the questions that are being asked of you all right now. Would you say that that's correct, Mr Mehrbani or Mr Shaub? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Alright. So one last thing, Mr Shaub, in relation to congressional oversight that we have, the limits that are placed on me as a congress woman compared to the executive branch and compared to say, the president of the United States, would you say that Congress has the same sort of standard of accountability? Are there, is there more teeth in that regulation in Congress on the president? Or would you say it's about even or more so on the federal? Schaub Um, in terms of laws that apply to the president, there's just almost no laws at all that applied to the president. Ocasio-Cortez So I'm being held and every person in this body is being held to a higher ethical standard than the president of the United States. Schaub That's right. Cause or some committee ethics committee rules that apply to you. Ocasio-Cortez And it's already super legal as we've seen for me to be a pretty bad guy. So it's even easier for the president of the United States to be one, I would assume. Schaub That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Thank you very much. 3:04:00 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Uh, and when we think about what we're dealing with, with respect to a campaign finance, uh, are you familiar with doxing? Smith In the sense of outing people online that you're referring to? Yes, generally. Roy So for example, are you familiar with a Twitter account called every Trump donor, which tweeted out one by one, the names, hometowns, occupations, employers, the people who contribute as little as $200 to the president's campaign, each tweet, following a particular formula. My point being in the question for you is, when we talk about campaign disclosures, are we aware of the negative impacts that you have on forcing American citizens and exercising their free speech to have that information be disclosed? Whether that's good policy or not might be debatable, but is there, are there negative consequences to that with respect to free speech given you're an expert on free speech? Smith There are, and there are definitely studies that have shown that disclosure does tend to decrease participation. Now, that doesn't mean as you point out that it's not worth it, but it certainly has costs. And so we have to be careful on how broad we would let that disclosure become. 3:11:00 Scott Amey The law is created that has cooling off periods. And so there's no cooling off period of one year or two year or a permanent bans. HR 1 would move a lot of those to two years I think, which would be beneficial. And there's even disagreement in our community whether one year or two, you know, what is the appropriate time to kind of cool off so that your contacts aren't there. But this is also something that President Trump brought up when he was a candidate. He talked about, uh, I think it was Boeing at the time, but he went on record saying that people who give contracts should never be able to work for that defense contractor. This isn't a bipartisan, this is a bipartisan issue. This is something we can resolve. The laws are already on the books. We just need some extensions in some tweaking of those to improve them and allow people to cool off and not be able to provide a competitive advantage to their new employer or favor them as they're in office and they're walking out the door. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) And so you do believe that extending this cooling off period and strengthening these prohibitions would protect the integrity of the process and helped to reign in these flagrant abuses. Amey 100% in one of the nice things with HR 1 is there is an extension of a cooling off period for people coming into government service. Currently it exists and it's uh, it's one year. This will move it to two and I think that's a probably better place to be in. You shouldn't be handling issues that involve your former employer or clients. Pressley One final question. How might these cozy relationships between government officials and corporate leaders or private contractors help to boost profits for these prison and detention centers? Amey Well, certainly they go with a lot of information, uh, when, when they go over to the private sector. But it also allows them to get back into their former office and within their former agency and call on them. Access as, as you were just pointing out, access is everything in this town. And so if you can get your phone calls answered, if you can get emails read, if you get meetings at that point, that can, not only with members of Congress, but with agency heads that can determine who gets contracts. I mean, it does trickle down from the top and we need to make sure that we prevent as many like actual and also appearances of conflicts of interest as we can. 3:17:00 Rep. Carol D. Miller (R-WV) What impact would the passage of this legislation have on those groups that are not political but may put out policy oriented communications? Smith It would be very curious and I've given a number of examples in the written testimony. I just say that I should add to this of course that the bill includes personal liability for officers and directors of some of these organizations. So you need to almost have to be crazy to let your organization get anywhere close to this promote support attack opposed standard. And again, what does that mean as I suggested? Well, you know, again, uh, government union might take out an ad maybe in a month, right? Or three weeks from now saying don't let president Trump, we shouldn't have to pay because he wants his wall in Mexico, you know, so, so tell them to reopen the government. Is that an attack on president Trump? I think that's the kind of thing that, that folks would not know and would make people very hesitant to run that kind of ad. Miller So it is a personal risk as well. Smith Yes. Yes. Not only risk. Plus it would be a risk, by the way, as well, to the tax status of some of the organizations involved in many of these organizations might have some type of tax status. 501(c)(3) organizations would have to be very careful because if they engage in speech that is now defined as political speech, 501(c)(3) organizations can't engage in political speech. They would jeopardize their tax exempt status. So that's another reason that these organizations would stay far clear of commenting on any kind of public issue. Video: , Senator Mitch McConnell, YouTube, January 30, 2019. Video: , January 29, 2019. Hearing: , House Committee on the Judiciary, January 29, 2019. Witnesses: Christian Adams- President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Vanita Gupta - President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference one Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Adav Noti - Chief of Staff, Campaign Legal Center Sarah Tubervillie - Director of the Constitution Project, Project on Government Oversight Hans von Spakovsky - Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Sound Clips: 10:45 Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) The official title of this bill is The For The People Act. This bill though is not for the people. It's not for everyday citizens. This bill siphons power from state legislatures, local elected officials and voters, and seeds, power to Washington lawmakers, unelected federal judges and lawyers. This bill is in particular for the unelected elites. It's for the people who don't answer directly to the voters. Contrary to it's name, this bill takes power away from the people and it does this by violating the constitution, by trampling over both the spirit and the letter of our most fundamental laws. 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. 1:08:00 Ifill I think, I think the problem we have is that you know, when we begin talking about the powers between the federal and the state government as it relates to elections, it is of course critical that we look to the constitution and that we look to the articles of the constitution that govern elections. But what we have left out of the conversation at least to this moment is the reordering of the relationship between the federal and state government that came with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and the 14th and 15th amendments in particular. The 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection of laws under, the 15th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race. National origin includes enforcement clauses that gives this body, the United States Congress, the power to enforce the rights that are articulated in those amendments to the constitution. And it is those amendments to the constitution that provided this body the right, for example, to pass laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for which all the same arguments that are being made today about the power of the states, about interference, about what the federal government is allowed to do and not allowed to do were raised and overcome. So the federal government actually does have the power when there is evidence and when they are enforcing the rights under the 14th and 15th, amendments to actually, your word would be interfere, but to engage robustly, in the protection of the voting rights of racial minorities. 1:15:00 Vanita Gupta There are over 13,000 election jurisdictions in our country, and elections can be run in a multitude of ways, but it is clear that Congress has the authority to make sure that civil rights are not violated in the course of running these elections. And that there are, there are equitable national standards to guide how this has done. And that is exactly what HR 1 does. 1:26:00 Ifill Let me use as an example. Texas has voter I.D. law from your own state the voter I.D. law that Texas imposed after the Shelby decision as a voter I.D. law that they had attempted to get pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision and pre-clearance was denied, in other words they were not allowed to make that law, become real because of the pre-clearance requirement. After Shelby, the Attorney General, decided that they were going to move forward with that law. It was imposed. We sued. We challenged that law and we won. But in the three years that it took us to litigate that case during that time Texas elected a United States senator in 2014. All 36 members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, various statewide commissioners, four justices of the Texas Supreme Court. Candidates for special election in the state Senate State Boards of Education 16 state senators all 150 members of the statehouse over 175 state court trial judges and over 75 district attorneys. We proved at trial that more than half a million eligible voters were disenfranchised by the I.D. law. We were ultimately successful in challenging but it was too late for those elections and this was a scheme that had been denied pre-clearance. This is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in our electoral system and that threatens our democracy. What excuse can we have as a nation for disenfranchising over half a million voters from all of the elections I just described. 1:35:00 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Where are the states, Ms. Ifill, that have most of the states that have prohibitions on people having the APP for you to vote if they've committed a felony? Ifill Well, they have been all over the country, but certainly there was a concentration in the south. As you may know, some of the history of these laws emanated, at the turn of the 19th century, I guess the turn of the 20th century, after southern states received back their power, they pass new constitutions. This is after the civil war and after reconstruction around 1900 and we saw the expansion of ex felon voting restrictions in state constitutions during that period, when there was a very robust effort to try and disenfranchise, at that point, newly freed slaves who had been free for several decades. 2:05:00 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) It contains a provision where federal tax dollars from hardworking middle class families and single mothers would be lining the pockets of politicians to pay for nasty TV ads and robo calls and paying for politicians, personal childcare and healthcare. Under this bill, it's estimated that at least $3.9 billion of taxpayer dollars would line the pockets of house congressional candidates based on estimates from Bloomberg and an estimated $6.25 billion with line the pockets of presidential candidates based on the formula in this bill and the 2016 election, for a total of $10.1 billion of taxpayer dollars. To me, this is an outrageous, outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. 2:23:00 Hans Von Spakovsky This provision of HR 1 says that if a commission is not established, or if it doesn't adopt a plan, then, the redistricting lines for Congress will be drawn up by a three judge federal court. Now, yeah, the courts get involved, federal courts get involved and redistricting, but they only get involved when there has been a violation of the voting rights act because there's been discrimination in drawing the lines or because the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment, one person, one vote, has been violated because the districts aren't equal enough and that's appropriate. And courts do that. But this bill would give the judicial branch the ability to draw up lines when there's, there's been no such violation. And so they're, in essence, you're taking a power of the constitution gives to the legislative branch and you're giving it to the judicial branch. 2:52:00 Gupta Well, our recourse used to be that changes in local voting patterns would be reported to the Justice Department and there would be recourse for the Justice Department to ensure that racial discrimination was not animating these changes and preventing people from exercising their franchise. As we said, in 2013, the United States supreme court gutted that key tool of the voting rights act. And it is why HR 1 is such an important, uh, act in order to restore the voting rights act and to restore the ability of the Justice Department and federal courts to actually prevent these kinds of nefarious actions from taking place before elections. Uh, litigation is crucial and groups that have risen to the challenge to, to file section two cases, but they are time intensive and they occur after elections after people have already been disenfranchised and can take years to come to adjudication during which elections are taking place. And so that is why, uh, it is incumbent and unnecessary for Congress to restore the provisions of the voting rights act. Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) So HR 1 will help protect the rights of my American citizens to vote before the election. Gupta HR 1, yes, expresses a commitment to restoring the voting rights act, and, uh, and that is what we hope to achieve in this congress. It is HR 1 also contains a slew of protections that have become proxies for racial discrimination around list maintenance and unwarranted voter purging. Hr 1 seeks to remedy those so that, uh, so that people can have their rights guaranteed before elections take place. 3:25:00 Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) And I have to tell you after that, being in Congress for six years, uh, I have come to find that there are so many issues that uh, my republican colleagues and I agree on and that the American people agree that we've reached consensus on it and that ranges from reducing gun violence to addressing climate change, to finding healthcare solutions. But my constituents ask and people I encounter across the country always ask, if we've reached consensus where 90% of Americans think we should have background checks. Majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening. 90% of Americans think we should have the Dream Act. Why can't you guys even vote on these issues? And I've concluded that it's the dirty maps and the dirty money. It is rigged gerrymandered maps where politicians from both parties protect their friends and the status quo and it's the outside unlimited nontransparent money, where Republican colleagues have told me, I am with you on this issue -and I've had someone say this to me - I am afraid about how I'm going to be scored, meaning that these outside groups, we'll give scores based on how you vote and if you're not with them, they'll primary you with more money in an unlimited way. And then that's poisoning our politics and preventing us from reaching consensus. 3:27:00 Swalwell I want to start with Miss Ifill, and if it's OK I want to call you Professor Ifill because I don't know if you remember you were my civil procedure professor at the University of Maryland. You wouldn't remember me I remember you. I was not a standout student at all but Miss Ifill according to your testimony Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the past five years. And I was hoping you could articulate some of those schemes today. Ifill Yeah just a few of them. Earlier I spoke about Texas's voter I.D. law, an I.D. law that had been denied pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision. Two hours after the Shelby decision the attorney general of Texas tweeted out his intention to resuscitate that law which he did. And we spent three years litigating it. We ultimately prevailed, but in the ensuing three years there were elections for all kinds of offices a law that clearly could not have survived pre-clearance. Just in 2018 we were on the ground in Georgia on election day doing election protection work in Grady County, the polling place had been changed two weeks prior to the election. A notice had been placed in a very small community newspaper but otherwise there was not real notice provided to the community and so people arrived at the old polling place and community residents had to spend the day standing outside the old polling place directing people to the place of the new polling place that had not been properly identified Under Section 5, the moving of a polling place is the kind of thing that you had to submit to pre-clearance and have it approved by the Justice Department before it could be implemented. Now there are a number of people that day who could drive to the new polling place but there were a number of people who had just taken off work and had a limited amount of time to vote and could not drive to the new polling place and so went back to work and were unable to participate in the political process. Those are just two small examples - well, one big and one small - but both consequential of the kinds of changes that would very easily have been averted and the problems that would have been averted had Section 5 been in place wouldn't have required litigation would have simply required a review by the Department of Justice and an opportunity for the community to resist that change or at least be informed of that change in a timely way. 3:28:30 Swalwell As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, if a candidate contacts a donor and tells the donor that there's ABC Super PAC working on my behalf, that candidate can solicit a contribution up to the maximum that candidate could receive federally. So I think it's $2,700 today. But I, as I understand it, there's no disclosure requirement by that candidate that they made that ask. And of course there's no way to know if the donor made the contribution or not because of the lack of transparency. Is that something that you think maybe we should address? Is having the candidates affirmatively, you know, tell the public that they've made requests for Super PAC a help? Adav Noti That's correct, congressman, but I would go farther than that. Candidates should not be soliciting for Super PACs. Period. Swalwell Agreed. But the FEC allows that today. Noti Currently the FEC allows that. The FEC probably has the authority to put an end to it. Congress certainly has the authority to put an end to it as an implementation of citizens United. But if it's going to be happening, yes, the public should certainly be aware. Um, and, and journalists and law enforcement should be aware that that is happening. 3:45:00 Gupta There is a reason why voters in red and blue states in 2018 voted for independent to create independent redistricting commissions around the country. I think people are fed up with the king that the parties can own their voters. And in fact, voters want to be able to choose their politicians, not have politicians choose their voters. In 2015, the United States supreme court decided that it was perfectly consistent with the constitution to make sure that legislators weren't drawing their own lines. We stand unique in the world for allowing that kind of thing to happen. Gerrymandering is a uniquely American phenomenon and yet HR 1 really goes a long way to prevent intentional manipulation of district lines for partisan advantage. And it goes through a very carefully calibrated and described process of having five Democrats, five Republicans, five Independents , all randomly chosen from a pool of applicants, sit on an independent commission. There's specific criteria about how a district lines would get drawn in a plan would need majority support to be enacted, including the backing of at least one Democrat, one Republican, and one independent. 4:03:00 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) Just one year ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, uh, said that our congressional lines were palpably gerrymandered, palpably unconstitutional. And so I'm a little baffled again by my colleague on the other side of the aisle from Pennsylvania who found that to be a troubling decision. It was a constitutionally based decision, uh, and I frankly wouldn't be here if it weren't for that supreme court decision, which rectified a 13 to five, delegation in Pennsylvania, to a nine, nine matching our voter registration. 4:07:00 Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) Florida was one of the states that required pre-clearance before the Shelby county decision. Can you provide us with an example of a change to the voting laws in Florida that were enacted since the decision and what sort of impact it's had there? Gupta Thank you, Congresswoman. There have been a significant number of poll site closures in the State of Florida, which have created a lot of issues around long lines and accessibility of poll sites. These kinds of changes, as I said, they seem minor because they happen in different places and they're small in, in uh, you know, just closing up poll site doesn't seem like it would, would rise to some kind of nefarious effort, but taken collectively, the Justice Department was unable to have any clear indication of what was happening with a number of poll sites being closed locally. And that's the kind of thing where those kinds of changes would have been pre-cleared or not by the Justice Department to prevent racial discrimination. There are any number of these kinds of minor and major changes that Florida has made since the Shelby County decision that have not been detected by the Justice Department as a result of the Shelby county decision. And these are the things that ultimately corrode people's confidence in the government and in elections and make people decide to opt out of voting all together is when they feel like their vote won't be counted or that the system is so rigged against them that there is no kind of accountability for the kinds of these local changes and subtle, more subtle changes that are getting made in previously pre-cleared jurisdictions. 4:09:00 Ifill As I understand it, in Florida, for example, formerly incarcerated persons can contribute to campaigns, which means a wealthy former felon like Jeffrey Epstein, who's been in the news very much, can and does contribute large sums of money to political campaigns. I'm not sure why we would regard someone who had served their time for a crime that they had committed and been convicted of voting. Why we would consider that more pernicious than the ability to contribute to campaigns. We live in an American system of justice in which once you have paid your debt to society, you should be restored as a citizen. That means that you should be able to get a driver's license. That means that you should be able to get a job. That means that you shouldn't be banned by the misuse of criminal backgrounds checks from being able to do a job. And it also means that you ought to be able to cloak yourself in the ultimate expression of citizenship in a democracy, which is the ability to cast a ballot and vote. So I don't see the making a distinction in terms of the crime. Our criminal justice system should ensure that someone is released only when we feel confident that that person is no longer a threat to society. And if our criminal justice system has made that determination, then it seems to me it's entirely appropriate for that person to return. And also receive the franchise along with their other citizenship rights. 4:14:00 Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) Let me just kind of remind you about black and brown people who simply wanted to exercise the right to vote were many of them were the victims of hangings, beatings, burnings, bombings, dismemberments, disfigurements, all for wanting to exercise their basic right to vote. And then when America became more sophisticated, we move from physical harming to poll tax and literacy tests. Questions like how many bubbles are on a bar soap or how many feathers on a duck. We farther in the greatest country in the world did everything that we could, those who were in decision making positions to humiliate, to embarrass, to disenfranchise, how long will we have to still as we sit here in 2019 continue to have to defend a person's right to cast their vote. The good men who made the decision and women with the voter's rights act of 1965 didn't do so because there wasn't a problem. And when we talk about that was old and that's in the past. No, that was in my lifetime. And it was actually in the lifetime of several of the members who sit here on this panel. They did so because there was a significant problem, particularly in southern states for which I am a representative of one of them. And so if we're serious about America being the greatest country in the world, then we all should play a role in making it easier for our citizens, regardless of their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, to exercise that basic. Right. 4:15:00 Gupta Independent redistricting commissions exists right now. For example, in California, Arizona, Colorado. Uh, we heard from members of Congress in Pennsylvania talk about the ruling that declare that the way that Pennsylvania was drawing district lines was tantamount to unlawful gerrymandering. They will now also have an independent commission. A number of states in November, just this past November, red states, blue states actually created independent redistricting commissions out of a recognition that voters frankly, are fed up with, with unlawful gerrymandering. These redistricting commissions, they've been authorized by the Supreme Court that the, which, as I said, decided that it is perfectly okay for, for, um, legislators to make sure that they are participating in the, in the drawing of their boundary lines. And in places like California, Arizona, and Colorado, that have had these commissions for a while, we have seen, improvements and representation and competitiveness of elections and in voter trust. And so this is why these provisions in HR 1 are so important. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD191: The “Democracies” Of Elliott Abrams

23 februari 2019 | 147 min

Elliott Abrams, the new U.S. Special Envoy to Venezuela, along with witnesses from the State Department and USAID, testified to Congress about the Trump administration's efforts to replace Venezuela's President. In this episode, hear highlights from that hearing and gain some insight into Elliott Abrams' past regime change efforts as a member of the Reagan administration, which will help you to understand why so many people are concerned that he was picked for the Venezuela job. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD190: CD186: CD176: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 13, 2019. Witnesses: Elliott Abrams - U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela, U.S. Department of State Sandra Oudkirk - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources, U.S. Department of State Steve Olive - Acting Assistance Administrator, Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.A. Agency for International Development (USAID) Sound Clips: 11:42 Rep. Michael McCaul: When Nicolas Maduro was hand picked by Hugo Chavez in 2013, it was clear that he would follow in his socialist dictatorship footsteps. Since that time, Maduro's policies, rampant corruption and violent crackdowns on peaceful political dissent have turned Venezuela into a failed state. Hyperinflation has skyrocketed. Food and medicine are scarce, and according to the United Nations, up to 3 million people have fled the country since 2014 last week, a fuel tanker and two shipping containers were placed on a bridge to block the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid as seen on the, uh, the screen. This act highlights how evil the Maduro regime really is. 12:34 Michael McCaul: The current crisis highlights the horrifying impact of socialism. Those who continue to preach or shows sympathy, do not understand its history and the abject suffering it has caused. 17:26 Elliot Abrams: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on our efforts to restore democracy. Protestors: Protestors yelling… 24:47 Elliot Abrams: Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today and thank you for the continuing interest, uh, and support that this committee has shown bipartisan interest in supporting the struggle for freedom in Venezuela. Protestor: Five coverage in your line. Again, that bridge was closed for years where that food was supposed to come down and when you were in charge will remind all persons in the audience any manifestations of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of a house and committees. 29:47 Steve Olive: State supports local human rights defenders, civil society, independent media, electoral oversight, and the democratically elected national assembly. Over the past five years, we have provided close to $40 million in democratic democracy assistance to these groups, including the planned $15 million in fiscal year 2018 funding, which cleared Congress yesterday. 39:04 Michael McCaul: Mr Abrams, I think we really have a historic opportunity to transform what's been a, you know, socialist dictatorship that has been a humanitarian crisis into a democracy, um, supported by freedom and the, and the people. And at the same time, I think for the first time in decades, have an influence on Cuba in the western hemisphere. 43:44 Rep. Brad Sherman: Um, we've got a situation where Russia expects to be repaid a Mr. Abrams. Um, what steps are we considering to, uh, support an action by the Venezuelan people to say, okay, we owe you so much minus that two, three, $10 trillion of harm you did to our country by, uh, uh, supporting this criminal Maduro. Uh, therefore you only owe us 1 trillion instead of 2 trillion. Uh, Mr Abrams are we, discussing with the Russians how we can make it plain to, the permanent future Venezuelan government that they do not have to pay Russia and that they will not suffer any demerits, uh, in, uh, in their credit rating for western agencies. So in Western banks. Elliot Abrams: We'd begun to have those discussions. Uh, primarily, of course it would be led by treasury, but, um, the interim government and the National Assembly has said that they would repay debts. Some of those debts, I think were never approved by the National Assembly. Ultimately, it is a decision that they're going to put the most of these that they're going to have to make. Brad Sherman: But if we put the Russians on notice that we would support and require our banks to support a decision by the Venezuelan government to offset that by trillions of dollars of claims against Russia, and that we would prohibit, we might choose to prohibit our banks from looking at any credit rating, uh, that, uh, was impaired by failure to repay Russia. Elliott Abrams: Don't believe that exact message. Brad Sherman: I hope you will. 47:23 Brad Sherman: And, uh, we also have Venezuela reportedly owe China, $20 billion. Um, I know that China's policy toward Maduro is, is different than that of Russia, but, uh, uh, what is China doing now to help the legitimate government of Venezuela? Elliot Abrams: They aren't doing anything to help, uh, Mr. Brad Sherman: Are they providing any additional funds to Maduro? Elliot Abrams: No. Uh, my information is that they won't lend any more money because they're worried about getting back what they've already lent. And the message that we've passed at him is you continue to back Maduro and the economy of Venezuela descends further. You will never get paid back. 1:0439* Rep. Albio Sires: Ms. Oudkirk, can you talk to me a little bit about the oil sanctions? I know that in my reports, that Juan Guaido plans to name a new board of directors for Citco the process will require the west to legally recognize the new board members. Would a new board have access to U.S banks, accounts with proceeds from Venezuela's oil sales that have been blocked by the sanctions? Sandra Oudkirk: Thank you, Mr Congressmen. So as I noted in my remarks, the key to sanctions relief for PDVSA, um, it is the transfer of control of that company away from, uh, Maduro and his cronies and to a demo, a democratically elected representatives of the, of the Venezuelan people. It would the, with regards to Citgo, citgo operations in the United States are covered by a general license that Treasury issued on the day the sanctions were announced. So sit goes operations here in the u s um, are continuing under that, that license and that license covers them for six months from the date of announcement. The ban is on remitting, uh, payments back to, PDVSA as long as it is, uh, under, um, the illegitimate control. So if you have, Albio Sires: What would a board do, named by Guaido? What would that do? If he names a new board? Sandra Oudkirk: For Citgo? Albio Sires: Yes. Sandra Oudkirk: I will have to get back to you on the details, uh, of that. Um, I don't have the answer for you right now. I'm sorry, Albio Sires: Mr Abrams? Elliot Abrams: Well, we don't want any of the, uh, one of the funds to go to the, to the regime, so that would not be permitted. But, um, I think there's a lot of lawyers in Washington who were making a lot of money trying to figure out the answer to your question. Albio Sires: My daughter's a lawyer... My thing is if, if we are able to get this money in U.S. banks and obviously under this sanction, good dumb money be used for humanitarian purposes in Venezuela? Elliot Abrams: It can, um, all of these funds, uh, all Venezuelan government funds are in our view, a rightly available to the legitimate interim president, Mr Guaido and the National Assembly. So they can use those funds to purchase additional humanitarian assistance, right. Is a lot of procedures to go through to get them actual control of it. Uh, and they've made it clear that they want to be extremely careful. They're going to be accused of, of misusing the funds. So everything's got to be totally transparent, but in principle, yes, sure. 1:24:44 Rep. David Cicilline: I want to turn to my first series of question because I am concerned by continuing comments from the Trump administration noting that the use of military force is, as the president said, an option. And so for you Mr. Abrams. My first question is we have not, of course, the congress of the United States has not declared war on Venezuela, correct? Elliot Abrams: Correct. David Cicilline: Is there an existing statutory authorization that would allow for a military intervention in Venezuela? Yes or no? Elliot Abrams: Not to my knowledge. David Cicilline: Has Venezuela attack the United States, his territories or possessions or its armed forces? Elliot Abrams: No. David Cicilline: Has the administration increased troop deployments to countries including Columbia neighboring Venezuela at any point in the last month? Elliot Abrams: Don't believe so. David Cicilline: Are there, are there currently any plans to or discussions about moving additional combat troops to Columbia or any other country that neighbors Venezuela? Elliot Abrams: Not to my knowledge. David Cicilline: Is anyone at the White House, National Security Council, the Department of Defense or any other agency making plans for US military engagement in Venezuela? Elliot Abrams: That's a question I can't answer. I know of no such planning. David Cicilline: Well, consistent with the war powers act. I've introduced legislation that expressly prohibits the administration room taking military action in Venezuela without consulting Congress. Will you pledge that the Trump administration will not take any military action in a regarding Venezuela without consulting with Congress in accordance with the war powers act? Elliot Abrams: I don't know that I can answer that question. Mr Cicilline. A series of presidents, you know, have taken a jaundiced view, I might say, of the war powers act. So I'm really not… David Cicilline: Well, under our constitution, as you know, only congress can declare war and we have neither declared war and are granted the administration the authority to send the armed forces into hostilities in Venezuela. In my view, it would be illegal under us law, inappropriate and reckless to attempt and military intervention. The United States must show leadership in our own hemisphere and we must continue to provide aid to suffering Venezuelans. But I want to just build on Mr Keating's question because you said of the 51 countries in this coalition, we are the only one that has threatened the use of military force. And in response to a question from Mr Keating, you said, because we're the only one capable of doing it, surely you're not suggesting the other 50 countries do not have military capability to engage in a military action if they so elected do. Elliot Abrams: Well, some do and some don't. David Cicilline: So some do. And we're not the only ones that have that ability. Elliot Abrams: We have not threatened military action in Venezuela. We've said that all options are on the table. David Cicilline: My question is we're not the only one that has that capability. So when you said that to Mr Keating that was not accurate. Elliot Abrams: We are the only one with the kind of capability obviously, David Cicilline: but others have military capability and have not made the same assertion of that being an option. Isn't that correct? Elliot Abrams: I am actually not sure of the answer to that of whether of what other governments have said. David Cicilline: Okay. So Mr. Abrams, what is particularly concerning to me is that in light of the fact there is no legal authority to, uh, express the use of military force as an option. It's unclear to me how the president or anyone in the administration can claim it's an option on table because it is not. And to the extent that we are suggesting that it is, we are misleading the international community where miss me leading the people in Venezuela. So I urge you to take back the message, the administration that it is not authorized and not helpful. 1:41:03 Rep. Joaquin Castro: Uh, I have in the past supported sanctions against the Maduro regime because as Mr. Meeks mentioned, I do believe in many ways that Mr. Maduro Has oppressed his people. At the same time, I believe that the role of the United States is to promote democracy, freedom and human rights around the world. The role of the United States is not the hand pick. The next leader of Venezuela and Mr Abrams. I have a question for you. My question is whether you're aware of any transfers of weapons or defense equipment by the United States government to groups of Venezuela opposed to Nicolas Maduro since you were appointed special representative for Venezuela and I want to be respectful of you, but also honest and the reason that I asked that question. There's been a McClatchy news report of such an incident. Have you, are you aware of that news report? Elliot Abrams: I saw the report, yes. Joaquin Castro: I asked this question because you have a record of such actions in Nicaragua. You were involved in the effort to covertly provide lethal aid to the contras against the will of Congress. You ultimately pled guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress in regard to your testimony during the Iran Contra scandal. So I asked you the question, can we trust your testimony today? : Well, you can make that decision for yourself, Mr. Castro. I can tell you that the answer to your question is no. It's a simple, uh, and unequivocal no. Uh, there has been no such transfer of arms. 1:41:50 Rep. Ilhan Omar: Mr. Adams in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran Contra affair for which you were later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. I fail to understand, uh, why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give a today to be truthful. Elliot Abrams: If I could respond to that Ilhan Omar: That wasn't a question. I said that that was not, that was not a question that was high. I reserve the right to my time. It is not. It is not right. That was not a question. On February 8th who is not permitted to reply that that was not okay. Question. Thank you for your participation on February 8th, 1982 you testified before the Senate foreign relations committee about US policy in El Salvador. In that hearing you dismiss As communist propaganda report about the massacre of El Mazote in which more than 800 civilians including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by us trained troops doing that massacre. Some of those troops bragged about raping a 12 year old girl before they killed them girls before they killed them. You later said that the u s policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement, yes or no. Do you still think so Elliot Abrams: from the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election, To this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That's a fabulous achievement, Ilhan Omar: yes or no. Do you think that massacre, was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch? Elliot Abrams: That is a ridiculous question. Yes or no? No, I will. Ilhan Omar: I will take that as a yes. Elliot Abrams: I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack which is not a question Ilhan Omar: Yes or no. Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide if you believe they were serving us interest as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua? Elliot Abrams: I am not going to respond to that question. I'm sorry. I don't think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions and so I will not reply. Ilhan Omar: Whether you under your watch, a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to know that anytime we engage a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being fathered. That is my question. Will you make sure that human rights are not violated and that we uphold international and human rights? Elliot Abrams: I suppose there is a question in there and the answer is that the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country. That's our policy. Ilhan Omar: I don't think anybody disputes that. The question I had for you is that the interest does the interest of the United States include protecting human rights and include protecting people against genocide. Elliot Abrams: That is always the position of the United States. Ilhan Omar: Thank you. I yield back my time. 1:42:35 Joaquin Castro: I also want to ask you, I mentioned the promotion of democracy and the fact that the Venezuelan people have to pick their own leader. What is the administration strategy for encouraging elections as soon as possible in Venezuela? Elliot Abrams: Well, that is the heart of really of administration policy. That is, uh, after the Maduro regime, a short transition to an election. And that's the view of all of the 51 nations that are supporting Mr Guido. I completely agree with the way you started. It's not for us to choose the next president of Venezuela. It's for Venezuelans. We can help is a lot of other countries can help in facilitating a free election because there's, you know, there's a lot of experience. The National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Freedom House and equivalents in a lot of other countries are really quite good at giving assistance. 1:45:40 Elliott Abrams: And once there is a, uh, freely elected government that can deal again with the World Bank and the IMF and a broad international programs of support, I think the Russian role will diminish very quickly. 1:47:00 Rep. Sandra Oudkirk: So one of the reasons why we licensed the continued involvement of US companies in upstream oil production in Venezuela was because the oil and gas sector is the key pillar of the Venezuelan economy and it will be going forward and keeping us the U s corporate presence there, um, with their best practices, with their adherence to all the sorts of practices that we expect here in the United States is we believe one of the best ways to ensure that in the future, Venezuela is able to return to prosperity and sort of an economy that functions normally. 1:47:59 Sandra Oudkirk: But we do believe that western involvement in the upstream oil sector, we will leave us positioned to, to have both the US private sector and the u s government assist with eventual economic recovery. And, and we are a counterweight to the Russian and the Chinese investment, which is otherwise very prevalent in that industry. 1:53:03 Greg Pence: Over 40 countries have now recognized Juan Guido as the interim president of Venezuela. 1:56:22 Steve Olive: What administrator Green and I were there in July. It was clear that there were saying, and we, and we saw it firsthand, that 90% of the Venezuelans that were coming into Colombia to get support, we're going back in to Venezuela. So they were just coming in to be able to get the vaccines or healthcare or food or, or generate some income to be able to go back into the country. And we expect that to continue until when we were allowed to bring in our humanitarian assistance into the country in a safe and efficient manner, in a manner that we can monitor where it goes, and that it makes sure that it gets to the people who are in need of it most. 1:57:24 Rep. Adriano Espaillat: Well, Mr Abrams, uh, many of our allies have expressed concern of your appointment, uh, to deal with this problem. Some carob have characterized it as being perhaps like appointing Exxon to lead a discussion on the green new deal or maybe even appointing MBS to lead a discussion on fairness in journalism and accessibility to journalists. Uh, do you feel that your past actions in Iran contract permanently impair your ability to fairly and transparently a deal in the region? Since we all know the outcome of what happened then? Do you feel that that's a major problem, baggage that you bring to the table? I don't and I've now I've been doing this job for two whole weeks. Um, and I can tell you that, uh, members of Congress have raised it. No Latin American of any nationality with whom I have dealt has raised it. And we've had lots and lots of discussions about how we're going to promote democracy in Venezuela. Elliot Abrams: I guess I should say, since I've been attacked now three times in my own defense, if you look at the written record of eight years when we came in, there were military dictatorships,and when we left in country after country after country, there had been transitions that we support it Chili's a very good example. So I think it's actually a record of promoting democracy. I think a lot of Adriano Espaillat: Respectfully, I differ with you, I think is a fact of history. We should not dig our heads in the sand and make believe that this never happened because he did. And you were at the helm of that Elliot Abrams: I was at the helm of promoting democracy in Latin America. Adriano Espaillat: You may want to characterize it that way, but I don't, I think you were involved in the Iran-Contra deal, and I think that permanently damage you to be a fair and impartial arbitrar in a conflict is leading to, to, to a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented levels in Venezuela. 2:18:26 Rep. Steve Chabot: Um, what's the state of press freedoms in Venezuela and how are we a countering the regime's propaganda and ensuring that Venezuelans are aware of the support that the u s uh, and the international community or providing? Elliot Abrams: Thank you, congressman for your question. We are providing support for independent media. Uh, we are now up to, with the approval of your current, the congressional notification notification that has now expired and we can now use our 2018 funding. We have approximately of spent about approximately $40 million or available for one of the areas is independent media. The groups that we are working with, Freedom House, uh, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Ndi and others are working to preserve an independent media within the country. 2:27:30 Rep. Tom Malinowski: Would you then agree as a general matter, and I know I'm sensitive to the fact that you're here representing the administration's Venezuela policies you can't necessarily speak for, for everything else, but as a general matter, would you agree that if we are going to be condemning a president who is trying to attain absolute power for life contrary to constitutions and the democratic process in Venezuela, that we should do so in other countries such as Egypt when that similar situations arise as a general matter? Sure. Elliot Abrams: I really should not respond, um, beyond the question of Ben as well. It's really not my remit at the department and not while I'm up here. Uh, you and I go back a ways and you know, that, uh, my view is generally that the United States should be supporting the expansion of democracy, um, all over the world. Video: , The Washington Post, November 1, 2018. Video: , YouTube, July 30, 2017. Video: , YouTube, July 11, 2017. Video: , Jersey Shore, MTV (YouTube), June 1, 2017. State of the Union Address: , YouTube, January 28, 2003. Presidential Address: , YouTube, November 13, 1986. Sound Clips: President Ronald Reagan: In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of our arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages... But why you might ask, is any relationship with Iran important to the United States? Iran encompasses some of the most critical geography in the world. It allows between the Soviet Union and access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. Geography explains why the Soviet Union has sent an army into Afghanistan to dominate that country, and if they could, Iran and Pakistan, Iran's geography gives it a critical position from which adversaries could interfere with oil flows from the Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, apart from geography, Iran's oil deposits are important to the long-term health of the world economy. Discussion: , The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, YouTube, November 30, 1983. Sound Clip: 4:11 Jim Lehrer: On the killings, in 1981 as I'm sure you're aware of, the State Department said there was between 250 to 300 political killings a month in Guatemala. Can you give me any idea as to what that figure is now? Elliott Abrams: our latest figures are down to about 40 or 50 a month, which is a considerable reduction. We're not suggesting that situation of 40 or 50 a month is good, but it's a lot better and we think that kind of progress needs to be rewarded and encouraged. Jim Lehrer: And you think this sale will in fact encourage more, not less? I mean more progress, not less progress? Elliott Abrams: Yes, absolutely. Because... Jim Lehrer: Now why? Elliott Abrams: Because it shows the government that we mean it when we say that we are behind these kinds of moves and that if you make these kinds of moves were willing to support you. If we take the attitude that don't come to us until you're perfect, we're going to walk away from this problem until Guatemala has a perfect human rights record. Then we're going to be leaving in the lurch. People there who are trying to make progress and are succeeding. Jim Lehrer: Are you, do you firmly believe that the, that the key person who is trying to make progress is President Rios Montt? Elliott Abrams: Yes. Because the government, uh, policies really changed after he came in and, uh, March of last year. Uh, and he is, I think it's fair now to say practicing what he preaches. There has been a tremendous change, especially in the attitude of the government towards the Indian population, which used to be seen as an enemy and is now seen as a citizen population, as an ally in the struggle for a future of Guatemala. Additional Reading Article: by Branko Marcetic, Jacobin Magazine, February 16, 2019. Article: by Raymond Bonner, The Atlantic, February 15, 2019. Article: , CBC News, February 15, 2019. Article: by Zack Beauchamp, Vox, February 15, 2019. Article: by Marco Terrugi, Workers World, February 15, 2019. Article: by Jon Schwarz, The Intercept, February 14, 2019. Article: by Hilary Goodfriend, NACLA, February 14, 2019. Article: by Joe Parkin Daniels, The Guardian, February 13, 2019. Article: by Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Raymond Arke, OpenSecrets News, February 13, 2019. Article: by Nidhi Verma, Reuters, February 12, 2019. Article: by Paul Dobson, Venezuela Analysis, February 11, 2019. Article: by Adam Johnson, Fair, February 9, 2019. Article: by Martin Vassolo, Tim Johnson, and David Ovalle, McClatchy DC, February 8, 2019. Article: by Tim Johnson, McClatchy DC, February 7, 2019. Article: by Tim Johnson, McClatchy DC, February 7, 2019. Report: , Congressional Research Service, February 1, 2019. Article: by Whitney Webb, Mint Press News, January 26, 2019. Article: by Heather Gies, Truth Out, August 5, 2018. Transcript: , All Things Considered with host Mary Louise Kelly, NPR, April 3, 2018. Article: by Raymond Bonner, The Atlantic, January 20, 2018. Article: by Karina Martin, Panam Post, December 4, 2017. Article: by Anatoly Kurmanaev, The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2017. Article: by Andrew Buncombe, Independent, July 25, 2017. Transcript: , The Aspen Institute, July 20, 2017. Article: by Eva Golinger, April 25, 2014. Article: by Howard Friel, Common Dreams, March 17, 2014. Article: by John Hudson, Foreign Policy, July 14, 2013. Article: by Jim Lobe, Lob Log, May 10, 2013. Article: by Elisabeth Malkin, The New York Times, May 10, 2013. Article: by Peter Canby, The New Yorker, May 3, 2013. Book Review: by Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, The New York Times, March 2, 2008. Report: , Amnesty.org, April 5, 2006. Article: by Joseph C. Wilson IV, The New York Times, July 6, 2003. Report: , United States Insitute of Peace, January 26, 2001. Article: by Chris van der Borgh, JSTOR, Spring 2000. Article: by Benjamin Schwarz, The Atlantic, December 1998. Article: by Guy Gugliotta and Douglas Farah, The Washington Post, March 21, 1993. Article: by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, March 21, 1993. Article: by David Johnston, The New York Times, December 25, 1992. Article: by Eric Alterman, The New York Times, November 4, 1991. Article: by David Johnson, The New York Times, October 9, 1991. Report: , U.S. General Accounting Office, February 1991. Article: by Elaine Sciolino, The New York Times, February 27, 1990. Article: by Robert Pear, The New York Times, April 16, 1989. Article: by Richard J. Meislin, The New York Times, March 4, 1987. Article: by Jeff Gerth, The New York Times, March 2, 1987. Article: by Richard J. Meislin, The New York Times, February 28, 1987. Article: by Robert Pear, The New York Times, February 27, 1987. Article: by Steven. V. Roberts, The New York Times, February 27, 1987. Article: by Fox Butterfield, The New York Times, February 27, 1987. Article: by Walter F. Mondale and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., The New York Times, February 23, 1987. Article: by David K. Shipler, The New York Times, February 6, 1987. Article: , The New York Times, February 1, 1987. Article: by David E. Rosenbaum, The New York Times, January 30, 1987. Article: by James Lemoyne, The New York Times, January 11, 1987. Article: by Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, December 17, 1986. Article: by Gerald M. Boyd, The New York Times, December 16, 1986. Article: by James Lemoyne, The New York Times, December 8, 1986. Article: by James Lemoyne, The New York Times, December 4, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, November 29, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, November 28, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, November 26, 1986. Article: by Bernard Weinraub, The New York Times, November 26, 1986. Article: by Stephen Engelberg, The New York Times, November 26, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, November 20, 1986. Article: by Bernard Weintraub, The New York Times, November 20, 1986. Article: by Stephen Kinzer, The New York Times, November 15, 1986. Article: by Milt Freudenheim and James F. Clarity, The New York Times, November 9, 1986. Article: by Stephen Engelberg, The New York Times, November 9, 1986. Article: by Stephen Engelberg, The New York Times, November 5, 1986. Article: by Leslie H. Gelb, The New York Times, October 23, 1986. Article: by Patrick J. Leahy, The New York Times, October 23, 1986. Article: by David K. Shipler, The New York Times, October 16, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, October 15, 1986. Article: by Philip Shenon, The New York Times, October 13, 1986. Article: by Stephen Engelberg, The New York Times, October 12, 1986. Article: by James Lemoyne, The New York Times, October 10, 1986. Article: by Richard Halloran, The New York Times, October 10, 1986. Article: by Richard Halloran, The New York Times, October 9, 1986. Article: by Morton Kondracke, The New York Times, September 22, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, August 27, 1986. Article: by Elaine Sciolino, The New York Times, August 1, 1986. Article: by Bernard Gwertzman, The New York Times, July 12, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, July 7, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, June 28, 1986. Article: by Paul Lewis, The New York Times, June 28, 1986. Article: by Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times, June 26, 1986. Article: by David K. Shipler, The New York Times, June 21, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, June 12, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, April 24, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, April 14, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, April 11, 1986. Article: by Gerald M. Boyd, The New York Times, March 27, 1986. Article: by Stephen Kinzer, The New York Times, March 26, 1986. Article: by Steven V. Roberts, The New York Times, March 26, 1986. Article: by Richard Halloran, The New York Times, March 18, 1986. Article: by Richard Halloran, The New York Times, March 14, 1986. Article: by Gerald M. Boyd, The New York Times, March 7, 1986. Article: by James Lemoyne, The New York Times, February 13, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, February 11, 1986. Article: , The New York Times, February 3, 1986. Article: by Tom Wicker, The New York Times, January 6, 1986. Article: by Bernard Weinraub, The New York Times, December 15, 1985. Article: , The New York Times, December 8, 1985. Article: by Robert Pear, The New York Times, November 25, 1985. Article: by Richard Bernstein, The New York Times, September 17, 1985. Article: by Richard Bernstein, The New York Times, September 13, 1985. Article: by Shirley Christian, The New York Times, September 8, 1985. Article: by Jonathan Fuerbringer, The New York Times, September 5, 1985. Article: by Gerald M. Boyd, The New York Times, August 9, 1985. Article: , The New York Times, August 8, 1985. Article: by Steven V. Roberts, The New York Times, July 26, 1985. Article: by Susan F. Rasky, The New York Times, July 16, 1985. Article: , The New York Times, June 16, 1985. Article: by Steven V. Roberts, The New York Times, June 14, 1985. Article: , The New York Times, May 2, 1985. Article: by Bernard Gwertzman, The New York Times, May 2, 1985. Article: by Hedrick Smith, The New York Times, April 26, 1985. Article: by Larry Rohter, The New York Times, March 7, 1985. Article: by Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, March 6, 1985. Article: by Philip Taubman, The New York Times, January 13, 1985. Article: , the New York Times, November 3, 1984. Article: by Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, November 1, 1984. Article: by Gordon Mott, The New York Times Magazine, October 14, 1984. Article: by Anthony Lewis, The New York Times, September 13, 1984. Article: , The New York Times, August 13, 1984. Article: by Milt Freudenheim and Henry Giniger, The New York Times, July 22, 1984. Article: by Julia Preston, The Boston Globe, May 4, 1984. Article: by William G. Blair, The New York Times, April 12, 1984. Article: by Bernard Gwertzman, The New York Times, April 12, 1984. Article: by Bernard Gwertzman, The New York Times, January 8, 1983. Archive: , GWU, November 10, 1982. Article: by Raymond Bonner, The New York Times, March 5, 1982. Article: by Raymond Bonner, The New York Times, January 27, 1982. Article: by James Nelson Goodsell, The Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 1980. Resources Book Description: Encyclopedia Britannica: , US Legislation Freedom House: Freedom House: International Republican Institute: National Democratic Institute: National Endowment for Democracy: ProPublica Report: , International Republican Institute ProPublica Report: Search: Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD190: A Coup for Capitalism

11 februari 2019 | 140 min

We knew it was coming, and now it's here: A coup is in progress in Venezuela. In this follow up episode to CD176 (Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress), learn additional backstory and details about the recent events in Venezuela, including the proclamation by Juan Guaido that he is now the President of Venezuela and all of the efforts being made by the Trump administration to get this regime change to stick. Executive Producer: George Melcher Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD186: CD176: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Armed Service Committee, C-SPAN, February 7, 2019. Witnesses: Admiral Craig Fuller - U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Commander Sound Clips: 16:10 Fuller While Russia and Cuba and China prop up the Maduro dictatorship, the reminder of the world is united. SOUTHCOM is supporting diplomatic efforts and we are prepared to protect U.S. personal and diplomatic facilities, if necessary. 53:44 Sen. Rick Scott In the Venezuelan military, have you -- have you seen any cracking from the standpoint, what we've been doing over the last -- especially the last two weeks, has any thing changed? Fuller - Certainly, there's been readiness aspects of their military that we watch very closely. It's a degraded force, but it is still a force that remains loyal to Maduro, and that makes it dangerous. We're looking for signs of those cracking, and we can talk in the closed session on some more details in trends we're seeing. 1:00:00 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR) - He said earlier Cuban guards completely surround the Maduro government. Does that mean that Maduro is dependent on the Cuban security and intelligence forces for his continuation in office? Fuller - Senator, I think it's a good sense of where the loyalty of the Venezuelan people are that to his immediate security forces made up of Cubans. Cotton - So the men that surround Maduro, like our Secret Service, are Cubans not Venezuelans. Fuller - That's my understanding and assessment. 1:01:54 Fuller - I would also mention that the presence of China, China has not been helpful in a diplomatic way. I will leave that to the diplomats. China is there and involved in cyber in ways that are absolutely not helpful to the democratic outcome. 1:18:47 Sen Tim Kaine (VA) - If the world wants to see a democracy versus a dictatorship challenge Venezuela is just like the perfect test case for circa 2019, what do democracies care for an what dictatorships care for, Venezuela government of Maduro is supported by Russia, Cuba, and Iran. And they are enabling him to do all kinds of horrible things economically and in violation of human rights. The interim government, which has a constitutional claim in the vacancy of a president, the speaker of the legislative assembly becomes interim president supported by the United States and the EU. You really can see what the difference between democracy and the aspirations of democratic governments and dictatorship and what they care about very clearly int eh Venezuela circumstance now. Here's the reality, we are dealing with regional institutions like the OAS, every nation has one vote. The U.S. has a hard time to get the UA asked firmly come out against the Maduro government because many Caribbean nations still support the Maduro government. They've been bribed to do so with low-price oil. But it's very hard for us to do something like this on our won and when a principal regional institution like the LAS is not completely with us it's hard to put the appropriate pressure on. Interview: , CNBC, February 6, 2019. 00:58:37 Steven Mnuchin : I’ve always watched the stock market a lot. I’ve been in the investment business since I graduated from Yale and I’ve tended to watch the stock market every day since then... As the President talked about last night, his economic program is working. We’re not going back to socialism. We’re going on an economic plan for America that works. 2019 State of the Union Address: , February 5, 2019. 2019 State of the Union Address: , February 5, 2019. 1:05:28 President Donald Trump - Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela, and its new interim President, Juan Guaido. We stand with the Venezuelan people in their noble quest for freedom -- and we condemn the brutality of the Maduro regime, whose socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair. Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence --- not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. Interview: CBS News, February 3, 2019. 00:42:58 MARGARET BRENNAN: What would make you use the U.S. military in Venezuela? What's the national security interest? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well I don't want to say that. But certainly it's something that's on the- it's an option. MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you personally negotiate with Nicolás Maduro to convince him to exit. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well he is requested a meeting and I've turned it down because we're very far along in the process. You have a young and energetic gentleman but you have other people within that same group that have been very very - if you talk about democracy - it's really democracy in action. MARGARET BRENNAN: When did he request a meeting? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We're going to see what happened. A number of months ago he wanted to meet. Interview: , interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, Hugh Hewitt Book Club, February 1, 2019. Sound Clips: 01:20:23 Hugh Hewitt: There are reports of Venezuela shipping gold to the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is a very close ally of ours. Have you asked the UAE to sequester that gold? John Bolton: Let me just say this. We’re obviously aware of those reports consistent with what we did on Monday against PDVSA, the state-owned oil monopoly where we imposed crippling sanctions. Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, is implementing them as we speak. We’re also looking at cutting off other streams of revenue and assets for the Maduro mafia, and that certainly includes gold. And we’ve already taken some steps to neutralize gold that’s been out of the country used as collateral for bank loans. We’ve frozen, and our friends in Europe, have frozen a substantial amount of that. We want to try and do the same here. We’re on top of it. That’s really all I can say at the moment. Council Session: , Atlantic Council, January 30, 2019. Witnesses: Ed Royce - Former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Carlos Alfredo Vecchio - Voluntad Popular Co-Founder, Interim Venezuelan Charge d’Affaires to the U.S. Julio Borges - Former President for the National Assembly of Venezuela David O’Sullivan - European Union Ambassador to the United States Sound Clips: 11:30 Carlos Alfredo Vecchio (via translator): What do we want to do? What is what we are asking the international community to support us with? First, to put an end to the usurpation of power by Nicolas Maduro. We cannot resolve the political and economic and social crisis as long as the dictatorship is in place. And this is something that we have to make clear. That is my priority, is to put an end to that and to help orchestrate international support to put an end to Maduro's dictatorship. 13:30 Carlos Alfredo Vecchio (via translator): Just to make very clear, I mean, from an economic point of view, we believe in an open market, an open economy. We believe in the private sector, we believe in the international and the national sectors, though, often, of course, our main source of revenue is the oil sector. So that would be a key element to recover our country, and we need to open that market. We need to increase our oil production. 39:15 David O’Sullivan: I think we absolutely share the same objective here. The European Union has always believed that the situation in Venezuela is unsustainable. We did not accept the results of the so-called elections last year. We declined collectively to attend the inauguration. And we are wholly supportive of the efforts of the National Assembly and Guaido to restore true democracy and free and fair elections. 48:00 Representative Ed Royce (CA): And a few years ago when the people in Venezuela elected the National Assembly, over two-thirds opposition to Maduro, he doubled down by asking China to bring the ZTE Corporation in and do a social credit system inside Venezuela on the same basis that it's done in China, which means that you now need that card in order to get food or medicine or your pension or your basic services. 48:30 Representative Ed Royce (CA): The fact that this ZTE-type arrangement exists in Venezuela, and now it exists in North Korea, and there's one other country where they have a contract—they're putting it in the Republic of Iran—this represents a new challenge to democracies. 1:15:00 Carlos Alfredo Vecchio: Just to make very clear, I mean, from an economic point of view, we believe in an open market, an open economy. We believe in the private sector, we believe in the international and the national sectors, though, often, of course, our main source of revenue is the oil sector. So that would be a key element to recover our country, and we need to open that market. We need to increase our oil production. 1:23:30 Carlos Alfredo Vecchio: Those agreements that has not been recognized by an international examiner, who has been illegal, we will not recognize illegal agreements. The rest, yes, we will comply with that. And let me send a clear message. For example, the only way that bond holders will not get paid, if Maduro remains in power. Nobody will complain with them. And China has to understand that, and Russia has to understand that. Discussion: , Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), January 29, 2019. Witnesses: Gustavo Tarre - George Washington University, CSIS Americas Program member, Designated Venezuelan Ambassador to the Organization of American States (appointed by Juan Guaido William Brownfield - Former US Ambassador to Venezuela, Chile, and Columbia during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration Michael Matera - Center for Strategic & International Studies, America’s Program Director Sound Clips: 3:30 Michael Matera: In what is shaping up to be a very unstable and potentially explosive situation in Venezuela, the leading authoritarian nations of the world have stood by Maduro. Russia, Iran, Turkey, China, and Cuba, among a few others, have stated their continued recognition of Maduro. The future of Venezuela is turning more clearly than ever into a proxy struggle between the authoritarian regimes and the democratic nations. Venezuela could easily become the active front on which this struggle is defined. 8:15 Gustavo Tarre: Not only because his knowledge of Venezuela— Madea Benjamin: Not easy because you are here representing a coup. You are totally illegitimate. Nobody elected Juan Guaido, and nobody legitimate appointed you. You are taking Venezuela down the path of a civil war— Unknown Male Speaker: Excuse me. Excuse me, ma’am. Madea Benjamin: How dare you go to a civil war? What kind of patriot are you that allow yourself to be manipulated— Unknown Male Speaker: Out. Get out. Madea Benjamin: —by Donald Trump, John Bolton, and now Elliott Abrams, the ultra hawk. It is a very dangerous situation. We need negotiations, which is why we should be supporting Mexico and Uruguay in their call for negotiations. You don't follow the coup collaborators, like this man right here. Say no to coup. Unknown Male Speaker: See ‘ya. Ambassador— Madea Benjamin: We’re in the 21st century. 1:08:50 William Brownfield: What is the Cuban interest? It's 50,000 barrels of oil a day to an energy-starved nation. What is the Chinese approach? It is very much an economic approach, which is to say there are raw materials of great importance to the Chinese economy that are located in Venezuela, and they have a long-term economic interest in having access to them, driven by economics. Russia is more complicated. They do not need oil. They are, in fact, one of the three largest oil producers in the world right now, who produce more than their national need. It is geostrategic politics. I would offer everyone two thoughts—because I have taken this question from excellent representatives of the media over the last week with some frequency—first, don't listen that closely to the words that you hear from the governments of China or Russia. See if they put another billion or two or three billion investment into Venezuela. Money talks, and I have not seen evidence of that, which suggests that they, too, are pausing and taking a look at what happens. And second, if I could be Russia-specific briefly, I would note, and we all realize this, that over the last 10 years or so, Russia annexed the Crimea, and the Western democracies criticized and protested. Russia created two new republics—one in South Ossetia, the other in North Georgia, I believe—and the Western world protested. Russia at least supported, and I would argue actually infiltrated, large numbers of security personnel into the two easternmost provinces of Ukraine, and the Western world criticized. But at the end of the day, geography and history determined the Crimea is still under Russian control, South Ossetia and North Georgia still exist as independent states, and Russian influence is still quite visible in and whatever the other province is called. All right. That is geographic reality. We are now in the Western Hemisphere. If Brazil and Colombia and Argentina and Canada and the United States take a position, those same geographic realities will, in fact, move in the other direction. Of course we must listen to the Russian and Chinese governments—they are two of perhaps the three most important governments in the world—but we're entitled to use our brains as we calculate what they are saying and how we respond to it. 1:16:30 William Brownfield: What if Maduro hangs on yet once again, which by the way, ladies and gentlemen, is not inconceivable; it's happened before. We had not quite this much of a conversation, but in 2017 some sensed that things might be happening, and they did not happen. Is it possible again? Of course, it is. That is why we talk about a strategy, an international community strategy with two elements: one element being focused on the Maduro de _____(00:35) esta, the removal of that government, and that strategic component is not eliminated until someone new has moved into Miraflores Palace; and the second, related but separate element of planning for the day after. Hearing: , Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, January 29, 2019. Witnesses: Dan Coats - Director of National Intelligence Christopher Wray - FBI Director Gina Haspel - CIA Director Lt. General Robert Ashley - Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director General Paul Nakasone - National Security Agency Director Sound Clips: 1:11:00 Senator Marco Rubio (FL): We know they have openly and repeatedly, at least Maduro has, invited the Russians and Putin to establish either a rotational or a permanent presence somewhere in Venezuela, thereby creating a Russian military presence in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, they flew, about three weeks ago or a month ago, two Russian nuclear-capable bombers into the Caribbean Sea. 1:12:15 Senator Marco Rubio (FL): Is it not in the national interest of the United States of America that the Maduro regime fall and be replaced by a democratic and more responsible government? 1:15:15 Lieutenant General Robert Ashley: The reference you made to the Tu-160 Blackjacks that flew those strategic bombers, third iteration of that—first time was in '08, and then '14, and we've seen it again. As far as presence on the ground, we can talk a little bit more detail in a closed session about where we see Russia and China going with that greater instability. But in the open press, what you've seen thus far really is nothing more than just vocal support that's coming out of Moscow and that's coming out of China as well, but there is relationship there. From the military standpoint in the way of training, lots of Venezuelan officers go to Russia for training, and there's a reciprocal relationship for equipping them as well. 1:16:00 Senator Angus King (ME): In light of Senator Rubio's comments, I'd just like to note of caution, he listed refugee flows, human rights abuses, and corruption. There are lots of countries in the world that meet that description, and our right or responsibility to generate regime change in a situation like that, I think, is a slippery slope. And I have some real caution about what our vital interests are and whether it's our right or responsibility to take action to try to change the government of another sovereign country. That same description would have led us into a much more active involvement in Syria, for example, five or six years ago, other parts of the country. I just wanted to note that. Fox Business Video: , Iraqi Christian HRC, Twitter, January 28, 2019. White House Daily Briefing: , January 28, 2019. Speakers: Steve Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary John Bolton - National Security Advisor Sound Clips: 1:26 John Bolton: As you know, on January the 23rd, President Trump officially recognized the president of the Venezuela National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the interim president of Venezuela. Venezuela's National Assembly invoked Article 233 of the country's constitution to declare Nicolas Maduro illegitimate. This action was a statement that the people of Venezuela have had enough of oppression, corruption, and economic hardship. Since then, 21 other governments in the region and across the world have joined the United States in recognizing Guaido as Venezuela's interim president. 3:53 John Bolton: I reiterate that the United States will hold Venezuelan security forces responsible for the safety of all U.S. diplomatic personnel, the National Assembly, and President Guido. Any violence against these groups would signify a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response. 4:24 Steven Mnuchin: Today Treasury took action against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA, to help prevent the further diversion of Venezuela’s assets by former President Maduro. 5:21 Steven Mnuchin: The path to sanctions relief for PDVSA is through the expeditious transfer of control to the interim president or a subsequent democratically elected government who is committed to taking concrete and meaningful actions to combat corruption. 5:40 Steven Mnuchin: Today OFAC also issued a number of general licenses that authorize certain transactions and activities with PDVSA for limited periods of time to minimize any immediate disruptions and support of ongoing humanitarian efforts. 6:00 Steven Mnuchin: Citgo assets in the United States will be able to continue to operate provided that any funds that would otherwise go to PDVSA instead will go into a blocked account in the United States. 6:10 Steven Mnuchin: Refineries in the United States have already been taking steps to reduce the reliance on imports from Venezuela. Those imports have fallen substantially in recent months. We have also issued general licenses to ensure that certain European and Caribbean countries can make an orderly transition. 6:20 Steven Mnuchin: We continue to call on all of our allies and partners to join the United States in recognizing Interim President Guaido in blocking Maduro from being able to access PDVSA funds. 7:10 Reporter: Is there any circumstance under which American forces would get involved? John Bolton: Well, the president has made it very clear on this matter that all options are on the table. 7:43 Steven Mnuchin: But effective immediately, any purchases of Venezuelan oil by U.S. entities, money will have to go into blocked accounts. Now, I've been in touch with many of the refineries. There is a significant amount of oil that's at sea that's already been paid for. That oil will continue to come to the United States. If the people in Venezuela want to continue to sell us oil, as long as that money goes into blocked accounts, we'll continue to take it. Otherwise, we will not be buying it. And again, we have issued general licenses, so the refineries in the United States can continue to operate. 9:06 Steven Mnuchin: The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. So when there is a recognition that PDVSA is the property of the rightful rulers, the rightful leaders, the president, then, indeed, that money will be available to Guaido. 9:52 John Bolton: And the authoritarian regime of Chavez and Maduro has allowed penetration by adversaries of the United States, not least of which is Cuba. Some call the country now Cubazuela, reflecting the grip that Cuba’s military and security forces have on the Maduro regime. We think that’s a strategic significant threat to the United States, and there are others as well, including Iran’s interest in Venezuelan’s uranium deposits. 15:56 Steven Mnuchin: We're dealing with Venezuelan oil that is a rather modest part of our overall supply. Again, we're a net exporter of energy. We are particularly concerned that there were a handful of refineries that had a dependence on Venezuelan oil. I think they read the tea leaves. They reduced that dependence significantly along the way. Most of them have in the neighborhood of 10% or less of their dependent on Venezuelan oil. So, I don't expect that people will see an impact on the gas pumps. 17:10 Steven Mnuchin: I’m sure many of our friends in the Middle East will be happy to make up the supply as we push down Venezuela’s supply. Meeting: , January 26, 2019. Speaker: Mike Pompeo - Secretary of State Sound Clips: 2:20 Mike Pompeo: Let’s be crystal clear: The foreign power meddling in Venezuela today is Cuba. Cuba has directly made matters worse and the United States and our partners are the true friends of the Venezuelan people. 16:40 Mike Pompeo: Such scenes of misery are now the norm in Venezuela, where millions of children are suffering from malnutrition and starvation, thanks to a socialist experiment that caused the economy to collapse. 20:24 Mike Pompeo: And now it’s time for every other nation to pick a side. No more delays. No more games. Either you stand with the forces of freedom or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem... But no regime has done more to sustain the nightmarish condition of the Venezuelan people than the regime in Havana. For years, Cuban security and intelligence thugs, invited into Venezuela by Maduro himself and those around him, have sustained this illegitimate rule. They have trained Maduro’s security and intelligence henchmen in Cuba’s own worst practices. Cuba’s interior ministry even provides former President Maduro’s personal security... Some countries have publicly taken former President Maduro’s side. China, Russia, Syria, and Iran are just four of them. Just this morning, we tried to find a way for this council to speak in one voice in support of the Venezuelan people and our democratic ideals through a presidential statement not this council. But our Russian and Chinese colleagues refused to let this move forward. It’s not a surprise that those that rule without democracy in their own countries are trying to prop up Maduro while he is in dire straights. Meeting: , January 26, 2019. Speakers: Jorge Arreaza - Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elliott Abrams - U.S. Special Envoy to Venezuela Sound Clips: 00:10 Jorge Arreaza: So 2002 is a direct precedent to what is happening. They were behind the coup d’etat. They weren’t as much in the vanguard or in advance as this time. They recognized Carmona, the dictator for the 72 hours that it lasted... It was on the 22nd, where Vice President Pence basically in a tweet gave a green light for a coup d’etat in Venezuela. As Under Secretary General said the interim President is self proclaimed. There was no ceremony. It was self proclamation by a member of Parliament at a public rally, at a peaceful public rally, one of many that there have been over the past years... If one of you can tell me in which article and which provision of the United Nations charter you can find the legal basis for self proclamation who wasn’t elected by anyone as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, then we can open a discussion on the legal aspects, but I don’t think that will happen... At last we have a chance to speak. We have a written text but before that I wanted to share some thoughts with you. Indeed, we can even thank Mr. Mike Pompeo because in the face of failure at the Organization of American States on the 24th of January, they didn’t have enough weight to impose a resolution, well they convened a meeting of the Security Council. In fact, we - President Maduro - thought of appealing to this body not only to debate the case of Venezuela but rather the blatant and gross intervention, and mechanisms of interference by the United States in our country. In this case, the United States is not behind the coup d’etat, it is in advance in the vanguard of the coup d’etat. It is dictating the orders not only to the Venezuelan opposition but also to the satellite governments in the region, and it seems it Europe and in other parts of the world. 31:47 Elliot Abrams: I can not respond to every attack that was made on every country here. The insults that were made by calling many countries here “satellites”. In fact, it was interesting that every single country that was attacked - or criticized - was a democracy. Every single one that you criticized was a democracy... Today there is a satellite present here and it is Venezuela, which is unfortunately has become a satellite of Cuba and Russia... The regime is hiding behind, and it’s spokesman is hiding behind, the laws and constitution of Venezuela. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, January 25, 2019. Witness: Vice Admiral Craig Faller - US Southern Command Commander Sound Clips: 1:37:00 Senator Bill Nelson (FL): What do you think that is the proper role of SouthCom in supporting the Venezuelan people now, in this time of exceptional chaos? Craig Faller: Senator, the Southern Command is focused on supporting our partners—Brazil, Columbia, those that have been most affected by the migrants, the spillover of some one-million-plus in Columbia. Recently, visited Columbia was the secretary of defense. President Duque is keenly aware and sharply focused on all his security challenges, and this is at the top of that list. As a result of the Columbian government's request, we intend to deploy the hospital ship Comfort—it will be underway shortly. It was delayed because of the hurricane—to the region to help our partners offset some of the impacts of this, particularly with the medical care that's been required and the strain that's placed on the resources. Fox Business Video: , Twitter, January 23, 2019. 00:33:32 Vice President Mike Pence: Today, freedom broke out in Venezuela with the recognition of a new interim president in Juan Guaido, a courageous man who stepped forward, the President of the National Assembly who took the oath of office, and I couldn’t be more proud that at President Trump’s direction, the United States of America became the first country in the world to recognize President Guaido, and now many other nations join us as well. Video: , Twitter, January 22, 2019. Vice President Mike Pence: Hola. I’m Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States, and on behalf of President Donald Trump and all the American people, let me express the unwavering support of the United States as you - the people of Venezuela - raise your voices in a call for freedom. Nicholas Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power. He’s never won the Presidency in a free and fair election and he’s maintained his grip on power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him. The United States joins with all freedom loving nations in recognizing the National Assembly as the last vestige of democracy in your country, for it’s the only body elected by you, the people. As such, the United States supports the courageous decision by Juan Guaido, the President of your National Assembly, to assert that body’s constitutional powers, declare Maduro a usurper, and call for the establishment of a transitional government. As you make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the American people, we say to all the good people of Venezuela, estamos con ustedes. We are with you. We stand with you and we will stay with you until democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of libertad. Muchas gracias y vayan con Dios. Hearing: Foreign Policy in the Western Hemisphere, House Foreign Affairs Committee, July 11, 2018. Witnesses: Kenneth Merten - Deputy Assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Sarah-Ann Lynch - USAID Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean Sound Clips: 27:30 Chairman Ed Royce (CA): And meanwhile, despite sitting on the world's largest oil reserves, Venezuelan oil production has fallen by half in the last few years. Venezuela in the meantime has been sending several hundred thousand barrels of oil every day to China as repayment on the tens of billions of dollars it has borrowed. And more recently, China's development bank announced a new quarter-billion dollar investment to shore up Venezuela's struggling oil production. Video: , Duane Johnson, Moana, YouTube, November 28, 2019. Hearing: , Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 19, 2017. Witness: Luis Almagro - Secretary General of the Organization of American States Sound Clips: 07:15 Senator Marco Rubio: I also know this, and I do not speak for the president, but I’ve certainly spoken to the president, and I will only reiterate what he has already said, and I’ve been saying this now for a number of days: it is my—I have 100% confidence that if democracy is destroyed once and for all in Venezuela on the 30th in terms of the Maduro regime, the president of the U.S. is prepared to act unilaterally in a significant and swift way. And that is not a threat; that is the reporting of the truth. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 2, 2017. Witnesses: Dr. David Smilde - Professor at Tulane University & NYT writer Dr. Shannon O’Neil - Council on Foreign Relations Former equity analyst at Indosuez Capital and Credit Lyonnais Securities , an multinational auto parts manufacturers that make parts for US auto companies Senior advisor for Latin America at , a multinational consulting firm founded in 2013 Mark Feierstein - Senior Advisor to the Albright Stonbridge Group CLS Strategies GBA Strategies Special assistant to President Obama and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs Former Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at USAID Worked in State Dept and USAID in Clinton Administration Former principal at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, an international political consulting firm Sound Clips: 21:53 Shannon O’Neil: Multilateral initiatives are perhaps more important and potentially more fruitful as a means to influence Venezuela. This will mean working behind the scenes to galvanize opposition and condemnation for the Maduro regime. This’ll be more effective than U.S. efforts alone as it will be much harder for the Venezuelan government to dismiss the criticisms and the actions of its South American neighbors as imperialist overreach. And such a coalition is much more possible today than in any time in the recent past, due both to the accelerating repression and the breaking of the last democratic norms in Venezuela, and due to the very different stances of South America’s recently elected leaders, particularly in Peru, in Brazil, and in Argentina. 41:12 Senator Bob Menendez: I’m pleased to have led a bipartisan and bicameral letter of my colleagues, urging the administration to take actions against the administration, and I look forward for a continuing engagement. But I hope we can work together to hold human-rights violators and drug traffickers, send a clear message, “If you’re going to violate rights of others inside of Venezuela, know that you’re next. Know that you’re next.” And while the Maduro regime may have sanctioned me and forbidden my entry into Venezuela, it will not stop me from pursuing this issue. Video Compilation: , YouTube, May 26, 2013 Additional Reading Article: by Tim Gill and Rebecca Hansen, The Nation, February 8, 2019. Statement: , Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, February 8, 2019. Article: of Maduro by Tim Johnson, McClatchy DC, February 7, 2019. Article: by Daniel Flatley, Bloomberg, February 7, 2019. Article: by Leigh Ann Caldwell and Josh Lederman, NBC News, February 6, 2019. Article: by Taylor Telford, The Washington Post, February 6, 2019. Article: , Spotify Investors, February 6, 2019. Article: by Patricia Zengerle and Arshad Mohammed, Reuters, February 6, 2019. Article: , The Moscow Times, February 6, 2019. Article: by Sybille de La Hamaide, Reuters, February 6, 2019. Article: , Reuters, February 6, 2019. Article: by Brian D'Haeseleer, The Washington Post, February 5, 2019. Article: , France 24, February 5, 2019. Article: by Rocio Cara Labrador, Council on Foreign Relations, February 5, 2019. Article: by Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare, February 1, 2019. Article: by Ryan Dube and Kejal Vyas, The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2019. Article: by John Schwarz, The Intercept, January 30, 2019. Article: by Jessica Donati, Vivian Salama, and Ian Talley, The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2019. Article: by Melik Kaylan, Forbes, January 29, 2019. Article: by Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, January 29, 2019. Article: by Julian Borger, The Guardian, January 26, 2019. Tweet: Nancy Pelosi, Twitter, January 24, 2019. Article: by Ana Vanessa Herrero and Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, January 24, 2019. Tweet: Donald J. Trump, January 23, 2019. Tweet: Vice President Mike Pence, January 23, 2019. Tweet: Vice President Mike Pence, January 22, 2019. Article: , Reuters, January 17, 2019. Article: by Ana Vanessa Herrero and Megan Specia, The New York Times, January 10, 2019. Article: by Jim Wyss, Miami Herald, January 4, 2019. Article: by Darko Janjevic, DW, December 23, 2018. Article: by Vladimir Isachenkov, Navy Times, December 10, 2018. Article: , The Moscow Times, December 7, 2018. Press Release: , Marco Rubio Newsroom, November 28, 2018. Article: by Angus Berwick, Reuters, November 14, 2018. Article: by Courtney McBride, The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2018. Article: by Cecilia Jamasmie, Mining.com, October 12, 2018. Article: , Rusoro Mining News, October 11, 2018. Article: by Ben Blanchard and Alexandra Ulmer, Reuters, September 14, 2018. Article: by Ernesto Londono and Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, September 8, 2018. Article: by Helaine Olen, The Washington Post, August 22, 2018. Article: by Ana Felicien, Christina Schiavoni, and Liccia Romero, Monthly Review, June 1, 2018.html) by William Neuman and Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, May 20, 2018. Article: by Eli Meixler, Time, May 15, 2018. Article: [Venezuela election won by Maduro amid widespread disillusionment](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/world/americas/venezuela-election. Article: by Gregory Shupak, Common Dreams, March 22, 2018. Article: , Rusoro Mining News, March 14, 2018. Article: by Rachelle Krygier, The Washington Post, February 22, 2018. Article: by Ana Vanessa Herrero and Kirk Semple, The New York Times, February 21, 2018. Article: by Kirk Semple and Nathaniel Popper, The New York Times, February 20, 2018. Tweet: Marco Rubio, February 9, 2018. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, February 7, 2018. Briefing: , U.S. Department of State, January 29, 2018. Article: by Kirk Semple, The New York Times, January 23, 2018. Article: by Ernesto Londono, The New York Times, December 27, 2017. Article: by Ana Vanessa Herrero, The New York Times, December 20, 2017. Article: by Kirk Semple, The New York Times, December 10, 2017. Article: by Patrick Gillespie, CNN Business, November 15, 2017. Article: by Kirk Semple, The New York Times, November 3, 2017. Advisory: , Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, September 20, 2017. Article: by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 25, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, August 18, 2017. Report: by Marianna Parraga and Alexandra Ulmer, Reuters, August 11, 2017. Article: by Peter Baker, The New York Times, August 11, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey and Ana Vanessa Herrero, The New York Times, August 3, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey, Patricia Torres, and Ana Vanessa Herrero, The New York Times, July 30, 2017. Article: by Landon Thomas Jr., The New York Times, May 30, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, May 1, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, April 26, 2017. Article: by Patrick Gillespie and Flora Charner, CNN Money, April 20, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey and Patricia Torres, The New York Times, April 1, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, March 31, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey and Patricia Torres, The New York Times, March 30, 2017. Article: by Eric Alterman, The Nation, February 2, 2017. Article: by Jeremy Ashkenas and Quoctrung Bui, The New York Times, December 30, 2016. Article: , Reuters, November 15, 2016. Article: by Ana Vanessa Herrero and Elisabeth Malkin, The New York Times, October 25, 2016. Article: by Patricia Torres and Elisabeth Malkin, The New York Times, October 21 2016. Article: by Elisabeth Malkin and Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, October 12, 2016. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, May 31, 2016. Article: by Patricia Torres and Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, April 26, 2016. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, April 12, 2016. Article: by Mery Mogollon and Chris Kraul, Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2016. Article: by Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, January 11, 2016. Article: by William Neuman and Nicholas Casey, The New York Times, January 5, 2016. Article: by William Neuman, The New York Times, August 23, 2015. Article: by William Neuman, The New York Times, August 7, 2013. Article: by William Neuman, The New York Times, April 17, 2013. Report: , The Carter Center, April 14, 2013. Article: by Ed Vulliamy, The Guardian, April 21, 2002. Article: by Juan Forero, The New York Times, April 13, 2002. Article: by Guy Gugliotta and Douglas Farrah, The Washington Post, March 21, 1993. Article: by Robert Jackson and Ronald J. Ostrow, The Los Angeles Times, December 25, 1992. Article: by David Johnston, The New York Times, October 8, 1991. Article: , Archives, The New York Times, August 15, 1987. Resources Bio: National Endowment for Democracy: Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD189: "First Step" Prison Reform

28 januari 2019 | 123 min

In the final days of the 115th Congress, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the First Step Act, which made changes to the operation of the federal prison system. In this episode, learn every detail of this new law, including the big money interests who advocated for its passage and their possible motivations for doing so. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD176: CD129: Bills/Laws S.756 - Sponsor: Sen. Dan Sullivan (AK) Original bill numbers for the First Step Act were and First Step Act Outline : Risk and needs assessment system Orders the Attorney General to conduct a review current and possible recidivism reduction programs, including a review of products manufactured overseas the could be produced by prisoners and would not compete with the domestic private sector Orders the Attorney General to create an assessment system for each prisoner to be conducted during the intake process that will classify each of them as having minimum, low, medium, or high risk of recidivism, the prisoner’s likelihood of violent or serious misconduct, and assign them to programs accordingly. This process must be published on the Department of Justice website by July 19, 2019 (210 days after enactment). means home confinement with 24 hour electronic monitoring, with the possibility of being allowed to leave to go to work, to participate in a recidivism reduction program, perform community service, go to the doctor, attend religious services, attend weddings or funerals, or visit a seriously ill family member. : Implementation of Risk and Needs Assessment System By mid-January 2020, the Attorney General must implement the new risk assessment system and complete the initial intake risk assessments of each prisoner and expand the recidivism reduction programs The Attorney General “shall” develop polices for the warden of each prison to enter into partnerships with “non-profit and other private organizations including faith-based, art, and community-based organizations”, schools, and “private entities that will deliver vocational training and certifications, provide equipment to facilitate vocational training…employ prisoners, or assist prisoners in prerelease custody or supervised related in finding employment” and “industry sponsored organization that will deliver workforce development and training, on a paid or volunteer basis.” Priority for participation will be given to medium and high risk prisoners : Authorization of Appropriations Authorizes, but does not appropriate, $75 million per year from 2019 to 2023. : Faith-Based Considerations In considering “any entity of any kind” for contracts “the fact that it may be or is faith-based may not be a basis for any discrimination against it in any manner or for any purpose.” Entities “may not engage in explicitly religious activities using direct financial assistance made available under this title” : Independent Review Committee The National Institute of Justice will select a “nonpartisan and nonprofit organization… to host the Independent Review Committee" The Committee will have 6 members selected by the nonprofit organization, 2 of whom must have published peer-reviewed scholarship about the risk and needs assessments in both corrections and community settings, 2 corrections officers - 1 of whom must have experience working in the Bureau of Prisons, and 1 individual with expertise in risk assessment implementation. The Committee will assist the Attorney General in reviewing the current system and making recommendations for the new system. : Secure Firearms Storage Requires secure storage areas for Bureau of Prisons employees to store their firearms on the outside of the prisoner area. Allows Bureau of Prison employees to store firearms lockboxes in their cars Allows Bureau of Prison employees “to carry concealed firearms on the premises outside of the secure perimeter of the institution” : Use of Restraints on Prisoners During the Period of Pregnancy and Postpartum Recovery Prohibited From the day a prisoner’s pregnancy is confirmed and ending 12 weeks or longer after the birth, a “prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, or in the custody of the United States Marshals Service… shall not be placed in restraints” Will not apply to state prisons or local jails Exceptions include if the prisoner is an “immediate and credible flight risk” or if she poses an “immediate and serious threat of harm to herself or others” No matter what, a pregnant or recovering mother can’t: Have restraints placed around her ankles, legs, or waist Have her hands tied behind her back Be restrained using “4-point restraints" Be attached to another prisoner Within 48 hours of the pregnancy confirmation, the prisoner must be notified of the restraint restrictions (it doesn’t say how they must be notified) : Reduces Sentencing for Prior Drug Felonies Changes the mandatory minimum for repeat offender with a previous “serious drug felony” (which is defined based on the length of the prison sentence: An offense for which they served more than 12 months) or a “serious violent felony” (added by this bill) from an automatic 20 year sentence to an automatic 15 year sentence. Changes the mandatory minimum for repeat offenders with two or more previous “serious drug felony or serious violent felony” convictions from a mandatory life sentence to a mandatory 25 years. Applies to cases that have not been sentenced as of the date of enactment and is not retroactive : "Broadening of Existing Safety Valve” Expands the criteria for leniency from mandatory minimums to include people with up to 4 prior non-volent convictions, not including minor misdemeanors. Applies to cases that have not been sentence as of the date of enactment and is not retroactive. : Appeals For Current Prisoners Convicted of Crack Related Crimes Allows people who were convicted of crack related crimes prior to August 3, 2010 (when the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 - which reduced the sentencing differences between crack and power cocaine - became law) to be eligible for reduced sentences. : Changes Existing Programs Creates an optional grant program for the Attorney General allowing him to provide grants to private entities along with governmental ones, for consulting services (to “evaluate methods”, “make recommendations”, etc). Authorizes, but doesn’t appropriate, $10 million per year from 2019 through 2023 ($50 million total) : Audits of Grantees Requires annual audits of entities receiving grants under the Second Chance Act of 2007 beginning in fiscal year 2019. Prohibits grantees from using grant money to lobby Department of Justice officials or government representatives, punishable by the full repayment of the grant and disqualification for grants for 5 years. : Placement of Prisoners Close to Families Requires that attempts be made to place a prisoners within 500 driving miles of the prisoner’s primary residence Adds “a designation of a place of imprisonment… is not reviewable by any court.” : Terminally Ill Prisoners Can Go Home Allows some terminally ill or elderly prisoners over the age of 60 to serve the rest of their sentences in home confinement : Expanding Prison Labor Allows Federal Prison Industries to sell products, except for office furniture, to government entities for use in prisons, government entities for use in disaster relief, the government of Washington DC, or “any organization” that is a 501(c)3 (charities and nonprofits), 501(c)4s (dark money “social welfare" organizations), or 501d (religious organizations). Requires an audit of Federal Prison Industries to begin within 90 days of enactment, but no due date. : Healthcare Products Requires the Bureau of Prisons to provide tampons and sanitary napkins to prisoners for free : Juvenile Solitary Confinement Prohibits juvenile solitary confinement to only when needed as a 3 hour temporary response to behavior that risks harming the juvenile or others, but it can not be used for “discipline, punishment, or retaliation” Federal Prison Industries: UNICOR FPI is a “wholly-owned government corporation established by Congress on June 23, 1934. It’s mission is to protect society and reduce crime by preparing inmates for successful reentry through job training” UNICOR Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Fiscal Year 2015, , November 16, 2015 Shutdown Back-Pay Law -, signed January 16 2019. - Additional Reading Article: by Anna Massoglia and Karl Evers-Hillstrom, OpenSecrets News, January 22, 2019. Article: by Edward Chung, The Hill, January 10, 2019. Article: by Liliana Segura, The Intercept, December 22, 2018. Article: by Karl Evers-Hillstrom, OpenSecrets News, December 20, 2018. Statement: by Lisa Graybill, Southern Poverty Law Center, December 20, 2018. Article: by Natasha Lennard, The Intercept, December 19, 2018. Article: by Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 18, 2018. Article: by Tricia Forbes, The Hill, December 18, 2018. Article: by Thomas R. Ascik, The Hill, December 17, 2018. Letter: , The Leadership Conference, CivilRights.org, December 17, 2018. Article: , All Things Considered, NPR, December 16, 2018. Article: by Peniel Ibe, American Friends Service Committee, December 14, 2018. Article: by Steve Dontorno, Tampa Bay Times, December 7, 2018. Article: by Charlotte Resing, ACLU, December 3, 2018. Article: by Amanda Holpuch, The Guardian, November 25, 2018. Statement: , GEO Group, November 19, 2018. Article: by Anna Massoglia and Karl Evers-Hillstrom, OpenSecrets News, November 16, 2018. Article: by William P. Barr, Edwin Meese III, and Michael B. Mukasey, The Washington Post, November 7, 2018. Article: by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Caroline Tervo, and Theda Skocpol, The Guardian, September 26, 2018. Article: by Ruben J. Garcia, CBS News, September 8, 2018. Article: by Amelia McDonell-Parry, Rolling Stone, September 6, 2018. Article: by Janice Williams, Newsweek, September 5, 2018. Article: by Brett Samuels, The Hill, September 5, 2018. Article: by Brett Samuels, The Hill, September 5, 2018. Article: by Daniel Moritz-Rabson, Newsweek, August 28, 2018. Article: by Glenn Thrush and Danielle Ivory, The New York Times, May 24, 2018. Report: , Department of Justice, May 18, 2018. Article: by Michelle Chen, The Nation, March 16, 2018. Article: by Mark Maxey, People's World, February 7, 2018. Article: by Jessica Estepa, USA Today, November 2, 2017. Article: by Jonathan Mattise, AP News, October 31, 2017. Article: , lawyers say by Mia Steinle, POGO, September 7, 2017. Article: by Byron York, The Washington Examiner, April 16, 2017. Report: by Wendy Sawyer, Prison Policy Initiative, April 10, 2017. Press Release: , Company Release, GEO Group, Inc., April 6, 2017. Article: by Madison Pauly, Mother Jones, April 3, 2017. Article: by Julia Angwin and Jeff Larson, ProPublica, December 30, 2016. Article: by Molly Redden, The Guardian, November 22, 2016. Article: by Safia Samee Ali, NBC News, September 4, 2016. Investigative Summary: , Office of the Inspector General, August 2016. Report: , Congressional Research Service, May 11, 2016. Article: by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, January 25, 2016. Article: by Victoria Law, The Guardian, October 20, 2015. Article: by Whitney Benns, The Atlantic, September 21, 2015. Article: by Emily Yahr, The Washington Post, June 17, 2015. Report: by Caroline Isaacs, Grassroots Leadership, November 2014. Report: by Barbara Auerbach, National CIA, May 4, 2012. Article: by Mike Elk and Bob Sloan, The Nation, August 1, 2011. Article: by Bob Sloan, Daily Kos, February 21, 2011. Article: by Gabriel Sherman, New York Magazine, July 12, 2009. Hearing: , House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, C-SPAN, July 1, 2005. Article: by Ronald Smothers, The New York Times, March 5, 2005. Sound Clip Sources Discussion: , C-SPAN, December 19, 2018. Speakers: - Mike Allen, Founder and Executive Editor of Axios - Mark Holden, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Koch Industries - Senator Amy Klobuchar Sound Clips: 22:27 Mike Allen: So, I have on NPR, “Koch-Backed Criminal Justice Reform to Reach Senate.” To some people, at least at first blush, there’s an incongruity to that. Tell us how Koch Industries got involved in this issue. Mark Holden: Yeah, well, I mean, Charles Koch and David Koch have been very focused on these issues forever, literally. They were early funders of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Institute for Justice, a lot of different groups. And from Charles’s perspective, the war on drugs, it’s been a failure. It doesn’t mean that you—there aren’t—it was in a criminal element within the war on drugs, but there are a lot of people in the war on drugs who don’t need to be incarcerated for so long. And so we’ve been very much in favor of proportional sentencing. You know, punishment must fit the crime. You break the law, you should pay a price, and then once you pay that price, you should be welcomed back into society, with all your rights. All your rights come back. That’s why we supported Amendment 4 down in Florida, the voting restoration rights for people with felonies in Florida. We don’t think it makes sense for people not to be able to participate once they’ve paid their debt to society. And for us, for Charles in particular, this is all about breaking barriers to opportunity. 24:10 Mark Holden: And last night, 87 to 12, that’s a curb stomping. And I will note, as a Patriots fan, Gronk is 87 and Brady’s 12, right? I mean, yeah. Something there. 49:00 Mike Allen: Watching last night, and the conversations today, it was clear there was a real sense of history, a sense of occasion on the Senate floor last night. Take us there. Tell us what that was like. Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): Well, we haven’t had a lot of joyous moments in the Senate this year. Big-surprise-news item I gave you. And this was one of those because I think for one thing we’re coming to the end of the year. We were able to get some really important things done: the farm bill; the sex harassment bill that I led with Senator Blunt that had been really difficult to negotiate for the last year; and then of course the budget, which we hope to get done in the next two days; and then we’ve got this. And this was something that has been explained. It was five years in the making. It took people out of their comfort zones. You had people on both sides that never thought they’d be talking about reducing drug sentences. So in that way, it was kind of this Christmas miracle that people came together. But the second piece of it was just that we knew they were these bad amendments that you’ve heard about. Some of them we felt were maybe designed to put us in a bad place, only because politically the bill protected us from a lot of the things that were in the amendments. So what was the best part of the night for me was that it wasn’t Democrats fighting against Tom Cotton and these amendments; it was Chuck Grassley, in his festive-red holiday sweater, who went up there with that Iowa accent that maybe only I can understand, being from Minnesota, and was able to really effectively fight them down. And the second thing was just the final vote—I mean, we don’t get that many votes for a volleyball resolution—and that we had that strong of support for the reform was also really exciting. Senate Session: , C-SPAN, December 18, 2018. Podcast: Wrongful Conviction Podcast: , September 5, 2018. Netflix Episode: Orange is the New Black, Season 3 Episode 5, , June 11, 2015. Netflix Episode: Orange is the New Black, Season 3 Episode 6, , June 11, 2015. Video Clip: , YouTube, February 11, 2012. Hearing: , House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, C-SPAN, July 1, 2005. Witnesses: - Phillip Glover - American Federation of Government Employees Prison Locals Council - President - Paul Miller - Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association Sound Clips: 1:32 Former Representative Howard Coble: Prisoners who are physically able to work must labor in some capacity five days a week. FPI is a government corporation that operates the BOP’s correctional program and employs inmates of the federal prison population to manufacture goods for and provides services to federal agencies. About 20% of the inmates work in Federal Prison Industries’, FPI, factories. They generally work in factory operations such as metals, furniture, electronics, textiles, and graphic arts. FPI work assignments pay from $0.23 to $1.15 per hour. 6:19 Representative Bobby Scott (VA): FPI can only sell its products and services to federal agencies. The program was established in the 1930s, in the midst of the Great Depression, as a way to teach prisoners real work habits and skills so that when they are released from prison they’ll be able to find and hold jobs to support themselves and their families and be less likely to commit more crimes. It is clear that the program works to do just that. Followup studies covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who participate in Prison Industries are 14% more likely to be employed and 24% less likely to commit crimes than like prisoners who do not participate in the program. 1:39:58 Former Representative Pieter Hoekstra, current Ambassador to the Netherlands: Mandatory source was great for Federal Prison Industries during the 1990s and 2001 and 2002. But you know what? I think it was wrong that Federal Prison Industries was the fastest and probably the only growing office-furniture company in America during that time. As the industry was going through significant layoffs, Federal Prison Industries was growing by double digits each and every year. 1:46:40 Philip Glover: If you have someone serving at USP, Leavenworth, for instance, and they’re in for 45 years or 50 years, you can educate them, you can vo-tech them, but to keep them productive and occupied on a daily basis and feel like they have a little bit of worth, this program seems to do that. That’s where, at least as a correctional officer, that’s where I come from on this program is that it gives the inmate a sense of worth, and every day he goes down and does something productive. Resources About Page: American Addiction Centers: Annual Report: Lobbying Report: Media Statement: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Product Page: Ranker.com: SPLC: Visual Resources Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD188: Welcome to the 116th Congress

14 januari 2019 | 131 min

We've transitioned! The 115th Congress is finally over and the 116th has begun. In this episode, get the details on the last acts of the 115th Congress, including the play by play of the shutdown drama, and learn about the new rules written by Democrats that will govern the 116th House of Representatives. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD186: House Rules : Gives delegates and resident commissioners (the representatives of D.C. and the territories) the ability to vote in Congress, but only if they are not casting the deciding vote. If they are the deciding votes, the vote will be re-taken. : Renames the following committees “Committee on Oversight and Government Reform” will be the “Committee on Oversight and Reform” “Committee on Education and the Workforce” will be the “Committee on Education and Labor” : The chairmen of the oversight committees need to create and submit their oversight plans to the Committee on Oversight and Reform by March 1, 2019, and then coordinate those plans with other committees for submission to the full House by April 15, 2019. : Removes the term limit of four out of six consecutive Congresses for members of the Committee on the Budget and removes the term limit for Chairmen of any committee barring them from serving as Chairman for more than three consecutive Congresses. : Changes the 3 day rule for mark-up notices to clarify that it means 3 calendar days excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. : Criminal trial evidence and transcripts will be used as evidence in House ethics investigations : Between March 1 of the first year and September 30 of the second year of the Congress, the sponsor of a bill with 290 co-sponsors can put their bill on the calendar where it will remain until it is either reported by committee or voted on in the full House. : Text of bills must be available for "72 hours” : Removes the requirement for a supermajority vote to increase taxes : PAYGO procedures for the 116th : Starting on January 1, 2020, members of the House of Representatives will not be allowed to “serve as an officer or director of any public company” : A suspension of the debt ceiling will be automatically included and passed along with the budget resolution. : Registered lobbyists will not be granted access to the Congressional gym : Limited the Committee on Agriculture to six subcommittees and the Committee on Financial Services to seven subcommittees : No bill can get a vote on the House floor unless it has been passed by a committee. Excepts include continuing resolutions and emergency bills. : Requires members of the House to pay for discrimination settlements for offenses they personally committed : Creates a commission called the House Democracy Partnership, which will be funded with $52,000 available between January 3, 2019 and March 31, 2019. The commission will be managed but the Committee on Foreign Affairs. : Creates an Office of Diversity and Inclusion : Creates an Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman : Creates a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which will have 15 members, 6 appointed by the Minority Leader, and which will have no power to create or change legislation and will not have subpoena power. “The sole authority of the Select Committee shall be to investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, and innovations to achieve substantial and permanent reductions in pollution and other activities that contribute to the climate crisis.” : Creates a Committee on the Modernization of Congress : Authorizes the Speaker of the House to use the General Counsel of the House of Representatives to defend the Affordable Are Act in Federal court. Bills/Laws Became law on New Year's Eve 2018 S.2322 - Final Vote Results: H.R.6061 - Public Law 109-13 - Additional Reading Tweet: , Jan 9, 2019. Article: by Eminy Birnbaum, The Hill, January 9, 2019. Article: by Paul M. Krawszak, Roll Call, January 8, 2019. Article: by John Bowden, The Hill, January 8, 2019. Article: by Susannah Luthi, Modern Healthcare, January 7, 2019. Article: by Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, January 2, 2019. Report: , Puerto Rico Report, January 2, 2019. Tweet: , December 21, 2018. Article: by Tara Golshan, Vox, December 21, 2017. Report: , U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 16, 2017. Article: by Scott Bronstein, Curt Devin and Drew Griffin, CNN Politics, February 16, 2017. Report: by Michael John Garcia, Congressional Research Service, January 27, 2017. Article: by Miriam Valverde, Politifact, August 29, 2016. Article: by Stephanie Simon, The Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2009. Article: by Randal C. Archibold, The New York Times, April 2, 2008. Report: by Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post, September 30, 2006. Sound Clip Sources Video: The Majority Report with Sam Seder, YouTube, January 8, 2019. Rep. Ro Khanna: “People hear the word PAYGO, they tune out. They think it’s some inside baseball technical jargon related to Congress. Let me tell you: It is a very important issue. It would be unilateral disarmament for House Democrats to adopt PAYGO. The Republicans never did. They passed massive tax cuts for the 1% and they didn’t have any spending cuts to pay for those tax cuts. They never do.” Rep. Ro Khanna: "Now that House Democrats are in charge, some folks want us to limit our policies by adopting PAYGO. Here’s what it would mean: If we have PAYGO, then to do something like Medicare for All, to do something like expanding social security, to do something like a bold infrastructure plan or a Green New Deal would require us to negotiate against ourselves. We would require cuts in programs that many of us value and like. We shouldn’t do that. The Republicans didn’t govern that way.” Rep. Ro Khanna: “Paygo would be a terrible policy" House Session: , House of Representatives, January 3, 2019. Hearing: , House of Representatives,YouTube, December 21, 2018. News Story: , Fox Business Network, December 18, 2018. Resources Congress.gov: Congressional Record: Obama White House Archives: Roll Call: [A Congressional Glossary Vote Results: , December 20, 2018. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD187: Combating China

23 december 2018 | 114 min

People in power tell us constantly that China is a threat but... Why? In this episode, we explore the big picture reasons why China poses a threat to those in power in the United States and what our Congress is doing to combat that threat. Spoiler alert: There's a another U.S. military build-up involved. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD116: CD115: CD114: CD095: CD060: CD053: CD052: Bills/Laws Became law as a part of The new bank “may designate private, nonprofit organizations as eligible to receive support… to promote development of economic freedom and private sectors” and “to complement the work of the United States Agency for International Development and other donors to improve the overall business enabling environment, financing the creation and expansion of the private business sector.” The bank “shall have such other powers as may be necessary and incident to carrying out the functions of the Corporation” “Promotes American prosperity and economic interests by advancing economic growth and development of a rules-based Indo-Pacific economic community” To support the “Association of Southeast Asian Nations”, “Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation”, and the “East Asia Summit” #1: Emphasize our commitment to “freedom of navigation under international law” #7 : "Develop and grow the economy through private sector partnerships between the United States and Indo-Pacific partners" #8: “To pursue multilateral and bilateral trade agreements … and build a network of partners in the Indo-Pacific committee to free markets” #9: To work with Indo-Pacific countries to pursue infrastructure projects and “to maintain unimpeded commerce, open sea lines or air ways, and communications” Authorizes $1.5 billion for each fiscal year 2019 through 2023 to be divided among the State Dept., USAID, and the Defense Dept. : The total authorization is almost $8.6 billion The money is allowed to be used for “foreign military financing and international military education and training programs” The money is allowed to be used “to help partner countries strengthen their democratic systems” The money is allowed to be used to “encourage responsible natural resource management in partner countries, which is closely associated with economic growth” Sense of Congress expressing the value of “strategic economic initiatives, such as activities under the United States-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement and the United States-ASEAN Connect, which demonstrate a commitment to ASEAN and the ASEAN Economic Community and build upon economic relationships in the Indo-Pacific region." “The President should conduct regular transfers of defense articles to Taiwan” “It is the sense of Congress that the President should develop a diplomatic strategy that includes working with United States allies and partners to conduct joint maritime training and freedom of navigation operations in the Indo-Pacific region, including the East China Sea and the South China Sea, in support of a rules-based international system benefitting all countries.” Authorizes $100 million for each year (2019-2023) to “enhance cooperation between the United States and Indo-Pacific nations for the purposes of combatting cybersecurity threats.” Free trade agreements between the United States and three nations in the Indo-Pacific region have entered into force: Australia, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea According to the National Security Strategy, the United States will “work with partners to build a network of stated dedicated to free markets and protected from forces that would subvert their sovereignty.” (a) “The President is encouraged to produce a robust and comprehensive trade capacity building and trade facilitation strategy, including leveling the playing field for American companies competing in the Indo-Pacific region.” Authorization of Appropriations:“There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts as many be necessaryto carry out subsection (a)." The President “should” take “all appropriate action to deter and punish commercial cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property” and orders a report on the government’s efforts to do so. Authorization of Appropriations: “There are authorized to be appropriated to the United States Trade Representative such amounts as may be necessary to sponsor bilateral and multilateral activities designed to build capacity in the identified priority areas” in the report Orders the President to create a strategy, updated every 5 years, to “encourage” Indo-Pacific countries to “implement national power strategies and cooperation with United States energy companies and the Department of Energy national laboratories” Authorization of Appropriations: $1 million per year from 2019 through 2023 Sense of Congress: “the United States should explore opportunities to partner with the private sector and multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to promote universal access to reliable electricity in the Indo-Pacific region, including Myanmar (Burma)" $210 million each year (2019-2023) to “promote democracy” and the money can be given to “universities, civil society, and multilateral institutions that are focusing on education awareness, training, and capacity building.” This money can be spent to “promote democracy” in China. Authorizes $25 million per year (2019-2023) to support the “Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, the ASEAN Youth Volunteers program, and other people-to-people exchange programs that focus on building the capacity of democracy, human rights, and good governance activities in the Indo-Pacific region.” “Nothing in this Act may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.” Amends the , which authorized the South China Sea Initiative providing military equipment and training to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, to change the name of the program to the “Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative” and expands the authorization to include the Indian Ocean in addition to the South China Sea and the countries of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Adds India to the list of countries allowed to be paid for expenses, along with Brunei, Singapore, and Taiwan. Extends the expiration date from September 30, 2020 to December 31, 2025. Changes the name of the military build-up authorized in NDAA 2018 from the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to the “Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative”. Changes the activities authorized to include an increase in “rotational and forward presence” of the US Armed Forces and adds the prepositioning of “munitions” in addition to equipment. Expands the options for funding by removing the requirement that funding come “only” from a section 1001 transfer authority. Requires a 5 year plan be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense by March 1, 2019. Authorized the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to “increase the presence and capabilities” of the United States Armed Forces in the region by building new infrastructure, “enhance the storage and pre-positioning in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region of equipment of the United States Forces”, and with military training and exercises with allies. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, June 14, 2018. Witnesses: - National Endowment for Democracy: President - International Republican Institute: President - National Democratic Institute: President Timestamps & Transcripts 1:43:38 Representative Michael McCaul (TX): I had a briefing yesterday in a classified setting on ZTE and Huawei, and their efforts to conduct espionage in this country. I’ve also seen them in Sri Lanka where they have burdened them with so much debt that they had to turn over a strategic port to the Chinese. We see the Chinese now in Djibouti for the first time, and we see them leveraging the continent of Africa into so much debt that they will be able to eventually take over these countries. They exploit them. They bring in their own workers—they don’t even hire the host countries’ workers—and they export their natural resources in what is this One Belt, One Road policy. 1:45:00 Carl Gershman: In March, The Economist magazine had a cover story on China, and the bottom line of the cover story was—and this is a direct quote—‘‘The West’s 25-year bet on China has failed.’’ The bet was that if China was brought into the World Trade Organization, was encouraged to grow economically, it would become a more liberal society and be part of the liberal world order. 1:46:26 Carl Gershman: It’s a problem with the Belt and Road Initiative, which is not just an economic expansion. This is intimately tied to China’s geopolitical and military strategy precisely to get strategic ports in Sri Lanka or in Maldives because countries fall into the debt trap and pay back by leasing their ports. 1:58:05 Representative Ted Yoho (FL): They’re a form of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and, as we all know, that’s communism. Our form of government empowers the people. Empowered people reach their full potential. China empowers the government where the people are suppressed for the benefit of the government. 2:00:10 Daniel Twining: It’s the surveillance architecture. This Orwellian total surveillance state they’re building with artificial intelligence and facial recognition and all this stuff. It’s very attractive, as you say, not to people but to leaders. 2:07:52 Representative Ted Poe (TX): Globally, what do you personally see is the number-one entity that is a threat to democracy worldwide? Is it China? Is it Russia? Is it North Korea? Is it ISIS? Is it Iran? Pick one. Pick the one you think is the threat. Carl Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: China. Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Twining. Daniel Twining: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Wollack. Kenneth Wollack: Russia. Rep. Poe: Russia. Russia and China. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity, July 24, 2018. Witnesses: Dan Blumenthal: Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute : Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security Timestamps and Transcripts 33:49 Chairman Senator Cory Gardner (CO): This hearing will be the first hearing in a three-part series of hearings titled The China Challenge and will examine how the United States should respond to the challenge of a rising China that seeks to upend and supplant the U.S.-led liberal world order. 34:12 Chairman Senator Cory Gardner (CO): According to the , for decades U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others. According to the , the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model: gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. 35:28 Chairman Senator Cory Gardner (CO): The question before us now is identifying the tools the United States has at its disposal to counter the disturbing developments posed by China’s less-than-peaceful rise. This is why Senator Markey and I and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors in the Senate joined in introducing the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, or ARIA, on April 24. The legislation sets a comprehensive policy framework to demonstrate U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific region and the rules-based international order. ARIA provides a comprehensive set of national security and economic policies to advance U.S. interests and goals in the Indo-Pacific region, including providing substantive U.S. resource commitments for these goals. I’m joined in this legislation on the committee by Senator Kaine, Senator Coons, Senator Cardin, Senator Markey, by Senator Rubio, and Senator Young, as well as Senators Sullivan and Perdue and Graham. 38:12 Chairman Senator Cory Gardner (CO): Our first witness is Senator—is Dan Blumenthal—I almost gave you a demotion there, Dan—who serves as director of Asian studies and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Blumenthal has both served in and advised the U.S. government on China issues for nearly two decades. From 2001 to 2004 he served as senior director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the Department of Defense. Additionally, from 2006, 2012 he served as a commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, including holding the position of vice chair in 2007. 38:54 Chairman Senator Cory Gardner (CO): Our second witness today is Ely Ratner, who serves as the vice president and director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security. Mr. Ratner served from 2015 to 2017 as the deputy national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, and from 2011 to 2012 in the Office of Chinese and Mongolian Affairs at the State Department. He also previously worked in the U.S. Senate as a professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the office of Senator Joe Biden. 42:01 Dan Blumenthal: I have to state that the era of reform and opening in China is over. It’s been long over. It’s been over, probably for 10 years. And China is back to being run by state-owned enterprises that are related to the party. The private sector is diminishing. That provides the Chinese state with a lot more control over economic coercive policies. 49:27 Ely Ratner: First, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should hold hearings on the cost and benefits of rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Rejoining TPP is among the most important things we can do to advance our economic position in Asia and erode the effectiveness of China’s economic coercion. By contrast, U.S. withdrawal has done substantial damage to our standing in the region and is facilitating the development of a Chinese sphere of influence in Asia and beyond. Rejoining TPP would renew confidence in the credibility and commitment of the United States, help to re-route supply chains in the region, open new markets for U.S. companies, and ultimately reduce China’s economic leverage. 56:28 Senator Ed Markey (MA): And through its Belt and Road Initiative, BRI, China is burdening countries receiving infrastructure loans with debts so extreme that they begin to undermine their own very sovereignty. According to a recent New York Times report, this Belt and Road Initiative amounts to a debt trap for vulnerable countries around the world, fueling corruption and autocratic behavior in struggling democracies. 59:30 Senator Cory Gardner (CO): Mr. Blumenthal, you mentioned in your opening statement, you talked about the economic opening in China being over. Could you go into a little bit more detail of what you mean by that? Dan Blumenthal: So, the period of reform and opening, which Deng Xiaoping began in 1978 and allowed for the great growth of China, the great growth of the private sector, private-sector entrepreneurs and brought so many Chinese out of poverty and benefitted the world, ended, probably 10 years ago, the Chinese we now know. The Chinese have gone back to the state sector dominating, taking out room for entrepreneurs to grow. They’ve gone back to things like price controls. They’ve gone back to things like lending on the basis of non-market, non-profitable lending but rather through patronage from the party to state-owned enterprises. They certainly haven’t moved any further than they were 10, 12 years ago on market access, things that we’ve been pressing for. They haven’t stopped subsidizing. In fact, they’ve doubled down on subsidizing their state-owned enterprises, which is probably the single biggest cause of probably the WTO stalling as much as it has. And Xi Jinping is certainly not taking China down the road of another round of market reforms—quite the contrary. He’s a statist and favoring state-owned enterprises and the subsidization of state-owned enterprises over the private sector. 1:11:42 Ely Ratner: China is going to use its economic clout to try to achieve its geopolitical aims, which include dividing American alliances and eroding the influence of the United States in the region. So I think that was a very important episode. It was very revealing. I think we can talk about trying to incorporate China into a rules-based order. I don’t think that’s where we’re going to be in the next several years. I think what we have to do is pull up our socks, get more competitive, slow down Chinese momentum in its efforts to develop this sphere of influence. That’s a much more urgent task than a long-term goal of developing a rules-based order. 1:13:44 Senator Todd Young (IN): Mr. Ratner, thanks for your testimony. As I reviewed your written statement, you seem to be making a pretty simple argument with very serious implications. In short, you seem to be saying we’re in a high-stakes competition with China, that China does not accept this rules-based international order we had hoped to welcome them into back in 2000. The legitimacy of that order and the institutions that were stood up to oversee that order are not respected by China. China, instead, respects power. And we as a nation have insufficient leverage, it seems, to be able to affect the sort of change we want with respect to intellectual-property theft, joint-licensing requirements, dumping, and so many other things. What we lack—and this is language you employed—is a comprehensive strategy. Is that a fair summary of your viewpoint, Mr. Ratner? Ely Ratner: Yes, sir. 1:21:05 Ely Ratner: When it looked like the United States was going to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership and that agreement was going to pass, the Chinese were starting to ask questions quietly at senior levels, with American officials about what they would need to do down the road to improve their practices to join that agreement, and obviously, those conversations are no longer happening today. 1:22:30 Senator Jeff Merkley (OR): Mr. Ratner, under WTO, is China allowed to offer subsidies to its businesses? Ely Ratner: Senator, I’m not a trade lawyer, so I can’t get into the weeds of WTO law, but I think the answer is no, and there’re several other dimensions in which they’re not in compliance with the agreement. Sen. Merkley: Under the WTO, China is required to do an annual report of all of its subsidies to different enterprises. Does it do that report? Ratner: I believe not, Senator. Sen. Merkley: So, when it fails to do the report, we are, under the WTO, allowed to do a report on their subsidies. I did an amendment a few years ago that said if China doesn’t produce a report, our trade representative will be directed to produce our report. And before that amendment, the ink could dry on it, our trade rep under President Obama produced a list of 200 Chinese subsidies, subsidies we’re well aware of but rarely kind of articulated. So that’s—so we certainly have an understanding of massive Chinese subsidies that are not allowed under WTO. How about to offer loans at non-market rates? Ratner: I believe not, sir. Sen. Merkley: Or to provide land for free as a form of subsidy? Ratner: I think that’s right, as well as forced technology transfer and a number of other practices. Sen. Merkley: And how about being required—for our companies to be required to locate in a particular part of China where the infrastructure is inferior to other locations? Ratner: Correct. Sen. Merkley: A couple years ago, when I was a part of a delegation to China, we were at a meeting of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in which many of these practices were highlighted, but one company in particular stood up and said, and I won’t name the exact company because they probably didn’t want it too much publicized at the time, but they said they were basically told, we have to put our manufacturing center in this far-western city, far from the port infrastructure; we are told we cannot build any size of item that is in direct competition with the Chinese items; they were told they only could build larger versions that the Chinese weren’t yet building, or they would be shut down and shut out of the country. Is that type of activity by the Chinese legal under the WTO? Ratner: No, sir. Sen. Merkley: And what about requiring American companies to do joint-venture arrangements in order to be able to locate in China? Ratner: Also, not part of the agreement. Sen. Merkley: So, and you’re familiar with how these joint-venture agreements are often used as a way to drain U.S. technology? Ratner: Yes, sir. Sen. Merkley: So, what does one say to the American citizen who says, “China is violating all of these rules, and the WTO has no mechanism by which we appear to be able to hold them accountable. Why shouldn’t we work intensely to create an ability to hold China accountable to the structure of the WTO?” Ratner: I think that was the intention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 1:45:22 Senator Cory Gardner (CO): In recent writings in the Wall Street Journal, quotes from President Xi, China has its own ideas about how the world should be run, and as he put it, “to lead in the reform of global governance.” Another quote, or another statement, “in at least eight African countries, as well as some in Southeast Asia, Chinese officials are training their counterparts in how to manage political stability through propaganda and how to control media and the Internet,” and that the China model provides “a new option for other countries who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence.” And finally this: China has committed to train 10,000 political elites in Latin America by 2020. All of this speaks to the need for what you have described, Mr. Ratner, what you have described, Mr. Blumenthal, is U.S. leadership and U.S. response, whether it’s the BUILD Act, whether it’s legislation that Senator Young has described, the legislation that we have co-sponsored together—the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act. This is a time for U.S. leadership, and it’s a time to stand boldly for our values that have empowered the world to be a better place, that has lifted up hundreds of millions of people around the globe up and out of poverty through a system of rules and standards that don’t favor one country over another but that give people a chance to participate in global governance and that global rise. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity, Septemer 5, 2018. Witnesses: Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro: American Enterprise Institute Abraham Denmark: Director of the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Timestamps and Transcripts 27:50 Chairman Cory Gardner (CO): Our first witness is Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro, who is the Jeane Kirkpatrick visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute where she focuses on Chinese military and security policy in the Asia Pacific. She is also assistant professor of Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and serves in the United States Air Force Reserve as a political-military affairs strategist at Pacific air forces. Previously, Dr. Mastro was a fellow in the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security. 28:25 Chairman Cory Gardner (CO): Also joined on the panel by Abraham Denmark, who is director of the Asia program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Prior to joining the Wilson Center, Mr. Denmark served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, where he supported the secretary of defense and other U.S. senior government leaders in the formulation and implementation of national security strategies and defense policies toward the region. Mr. Denmark also previously worked as senior vice president for political and security affairs at the National Bureau of Asian Research, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and held several positions in the U.S. intelligence community. 42:40 Oriana Skylar Mastro: What China is doing is they’re exploiting gaps in the order. So, we talk about the U.S.-led international order and whether China is challenging it or not. But in reality, there’s many areas of the order that lacks certainty, or ambiguous, don’t have consensus. So I would label cybersecurity as one of these areas. And so what China does is it’s trying to build consensus or work on the periphery of the order. So, for example, when they did One Belt, One Road, and they initially moved to the central Asia, they weren’t challenging the United States, because the United States was not there. And so I would say that in addition to strengthening our relationship with traditional partners and allies, the United States needs to think more broadly about its relationships with countries around the globe. Also, in terms of the security initiative, I would recommend that we think more about demand not supply, in kind of business terms. You often, at least in my experience, you think about what the United States has to offer in terms of security assistance, and then we try to put together packages, whether it’s visits, port visits, or a rotation of a squadron or what have you, instead of looking at what those countries actually demand. And so we should move away from this model of increasing advertising and hoping that countries around the world will decide they want what we have to offer, and instead try to look at what they actually want and start supplying that. 1:05:45 Senator Ed Markey (MA): Should the United States abandon the rules-based international system, and what would the concessions be that we would try to extract in order to take such a step? Dr. Mastro. Oriana Skylar Mastro: So, sir, I don’t think we should abandon it. Instead, what I’m arguing for is an expansion of that system. I think that actually the international, is very limited. If you look at the definition, the party to that order, the amount of countries that actually might be involved in certain treaties, it’s not every country possible. For example, India has very different views on things like cybersecurity than the United States does. And so I think if we could manage to build consensus in these areas of uncertainty, we could actually shape China’s choices. And to that end, that gives the United States a lot of political power because the bottom line is one of the main differences between today and maybe 10 years ago is for the United States, the security benefits that we give to our partners, allies, in the region are no longer enough to outweigh the economic benefits that they get from interacting with China. And so we need a security-benefits-plus type of strategy in which we think also about the economic benefits, which is difficult under the current administration, given the trade policy, but also those political benefits by building new international institutions and building new norms and consensus around areas where that consensus has failed to date. 1:07:08 Chairman Cory Gardner (CO): Going back to the question I started to talk about, just the investments that China has made in South America, the investments China is making in Central America. If you look at investments in Panama, El Salvador, and at least apparently in El Salvador, as perhaps part of an agreement as it relates to the decision El Salvador made on Taiwan. Look at the sale of submarines to countries—Thailand—do we see that as continued opportunity for China’s military expansion? Will we see military basing affecting U.S. operations in Thailand? Will we see, perhaps, an opportunity for military entrance into Central America, into South America, China, basing, even, perhaps? Mr. Denmark. Abraham Denmark: Well, I think there’s a lot that remains to be seen. I don’t think there’s a definitive yes or no answer to that question, but I do expect that Djibouti be the first overseas base that China has established. I fully expect that that will not be the last. Where additional facilities may pop up remains to be seen. I personally would expect more facilities to be established along the trade routes from the Western Pacific, through the Indian Ocean, into the Middle East. I would expect to see more there than before I’d expect to see them in Latin America, primarily because of China’s economic interests, but it remains to be seen. 1:20:00 Senator Ed Markey (MA): In September of 2013, China began a concerted effort to build artificial islands in the South China Sea by crushing coral reefs into sand. It built land features where none previously existed. On top of that, China expanded small outposts into military bases capable of conducting operations. Admiral Philip Davidson, the commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, stated this year that China’s militarization of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea means “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios, short of a war with the United States.” Ms. Mastro, what considerations or challenges do these bases pose for other claimants and the United States in peacetime, in the gray zone, or in conflict? In other words, what are the implications of China’s military bases in the South China Sea? Oriana Skylar Mastro: So, militarily, sir, they expand the range of Chinese capabilities. And so I think I made the point previously that it’s difficult for us to conceive of fighting a war with China using our bases in Korea and Japan, and that’s primarily because of the range of conventional precision-guided munitions that China has that can reach those bases and render them inoperable. In the South China Sea, which is about the size of the United States, China’s power-projection capabilities historically have been quite limited. And in the report, for example, one thing that was highlighted was the H-6K, when it has ______(01:37), now China can extend its range to 3,300 kilometers. But if you actually have bases there, coupled with carriers, then China’s able to sustain combat sorties, for example, for longer periods of time and at farther ranges than it was before. And this is what allows it to be able to control, as the quote suggested, large areas of the South China Sea, the air, and the sea. I would just mention on the gray-zone side, that China can engage in gray-zone activities only because the United States allows it to. There’s nothing that, as far as I understand it, there’s nothing that tells us that, for example, if China says, “Well, this is a Coast Guard,” that we can’t respond with the use of the U.S. Navy. We are too concerned about escalation, and China knows this. They don’t believe in miscalculation and in inadvertent escalation, and so they use this to their advantage. And we should start being very clear about what our redlines are and, obviously, being then able to follow through with that. 1:42:30 Senator Ed Markey (MA): I just have one final area of questioning, if I may, and that just goes back to the Belt and Road Initiative which has resulted in a very generous policy by China of loaning money to countries, which they then can’t pay back, which then results in China being able to extract huge long-term concessions from those countries. Sri Lanka, just a perfect example where they’ve now had to give up a 99-year lease to the Chinese company, which is partially owned by the Chinese government, 15,000 acres of land. And now it appears there are more countries that are deciding to reconsider how far in debt they want their countries or companies to be to a Chinese entity. But at the same time, President Xi, just in the last few days has announced a new $60 billion program—grants, loans—around the world, on top of the $60 billion program that they’ve had in the past that now has these consequences. So, what are the implications for the United States, for global security, of these Chinese strategies in country after country to gain access, or control over, ports in countries? And what would you recommend to the United States that we do to try to make sure that we minimize the ability of this Belt and Road program to build economic and security relationships with companies in a way almost giving them offers they can’t refuse so they become deeper indebted and more entangled into Chinese foreign policy objectives? 1:48:09 Abraham Denmark: The initiative announced several weeks ago by Secretary of State Pompeo in this vein to enhance U.S. engagement, economic engagement, in these areas I thought was a good indication of seeing the problem and trying to address it, not trying to copy the Chinese system, but playing to American strengths of the free market and American corporations. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity, December 4, 2018. Witnesses: Laura Stone: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the US Department of State Scott Busby: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Labor at the US Department of State Gloria Steele: Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia at USAID Timestamps and Transcripts 01:23:05 Senator Ed Markey (MA): Around the world, all countries, including the United States, rely on the rules-based international order to underpin security and prosperity to help provide a level playing field, to provide the maximum opportunity for the greatest number of people, and to defend and protect certain fundamental rights. So it is of the utmost importance that we do everything in our power to ensure that this system remains. 01:30:00 Senator Cory Gardner (CO): Our first witness is Scott Busby, who serves as deputy assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of the Human Right, Democracy, and Labor. Previously, he served as director for human rights on the National Security Council in the White House from 2009 to 2011, where he managed a wide range of human rights and refugee issues. 01:36:20 Scott Busby: My bureau, DRL, is implementing $10 million of FY 2018 economic support funds to support human rights in China, just as we have done for the past several years. Nevertheless, such programs are increasingly challenged by the difficult operating environment in China, including the new and highly restrictive foreign NGO management law. 1:59:58 Senator Marco Rubio (FL): And then you see sort of what the global reaction has been to it, and there’s reason to be concerned that this post-World War II, pro-democracy, pro-human rights, global norms are being eroded and reshaped and that China is using its geopolitical heft and its economic power to push it in that direction. Meeting: , August 4, 2018. Speaker: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Timestamps and Transcripts 1:15 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: "Throughout my ASEAN-centered engagements these past days I’ve conveyed President Trump’s commitment to this vital part of the world that continues to grow in importance. Security has been a major focus of our conversations. As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly $300 million in new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region.” 4:50 - Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: "As I said earlier this week, the United States practices partnership economics; we seek partnership, not dominance. Earlier this week at the Indo-Pacific Business Forum hosted by the United States Chamber of Commerce, I outlined the Trump administration’s economic strategy for advancing a free and open Indo-Pacific, and I talked about why U.S. businesses’ engagement in the region is crucial to our mission of promoting peace, stability, and prosperity. There is no better force for prosperity in the world than American businesses. When nations partner with American firms, they can have confidence they are working with the most scrupulous, well-run, and transparent companies in the world. As a down payment on a new era in American economic commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, I announced at the forum $113 million in new U.S. Government resources to support foundational areas of the future: the digital economy, energy, and infrastructure. In addition, the Trump administration is working with Congress to encourage the passage of the BUILD Act. It recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now before the United States Senate. Under this bill, the government’s development finance capacity would more than double to $60 billion to support U.S. private investment in strategic opportunities abroad." Meeting: , National Association Southern Center, April 20, 1994. Speaker: Arthur Dunkel - Director of the UN Wrote the “” in 1991, a 500 page general outline of what became the WTO 3 years later - it’s basically the WTO’s Constitution , became a “trade consultant”, and served on the board of Nestle Is a registered Transcript Arthur Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the sadly planned world; the sadly planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension - political tension and even worse than that." Additional Reading Article: by Stewart Clarke, Variety, December 13, 2018. Article: , Reuters, November 20, 2018. Annual Report: , USCC.gov, November 14, 2018. Article: by Bharath Gopalaswamy, Foreign Policy, October 29, 2018. Article: , Press Reader, Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) October 14, 2018. Article: CSIS, October 12, 2018. Article: by Daniel Kliman and Abigail Grace, CNAS, September 20, 2018. Article: by Keoni Everington, Taiwan News, September 6, 2018. Fact Sheet: , U.S. Department of State, August 4, 2018. Article: by Michael Wyland, Nonprofit Quarterly, July 18, 2018. Article: by Panos Mourdoukoutas, Forbes, June 28, 2018. Article: by Reuters, GCaptain, June 26, 2018. Article: by Maria Abi-Habib, The New York Times, June 25, 2018. Article: by Peter Harrell, Elizabeth Rosenberg, and Edoardo Saravalle, CNAS, June 11, 2018. Article: by The Editorial Board, WSJ, June 4, 2018. Article: by Investopedia, April 6, 2018. Article: by Raul Dancel, The Straits Times, February 6, 2018. Report: by Wayne M. Morrison, Congressional Research Service, February 5, 2018. Article: by James W. Fatheree, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, November 17, 2017. Article: by Dan Southerland, Radio Free Asia, November 10, 2017. Report: , Congressional Research Service, October 30, 2017. Article: by Adva Saldinger, devex, February 21, 2017. News Release: , Council on Foreign Relations, February 15, 2017. News Report: by Kate Larsen, ABC 7 News, January 26, 2017. Article: by Billy Mitchell, Fed Scoop, September 9, 2016. Article: by A.C. Thompson, ProPublica, November 3, 2015. Article: by Molly Reiner, Taiwan Business TOPICS, October 28, 2015. Article: by Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, BBC News, September 9, 2014. Article: by David Rose, Vanity Fair, February 26, 2014. Article: by Eli Clifton, The Nation, June 25, 2013. Article: by Walt Hickey, Business Insider, February 12, 2013. Article: , Independent, May 23, 2010. Article: by Daniel Blumenthal, Foreign Policy, November 3, 2009. Article: by Tim Shorrock, Salon, May 29, 2008. Report: , Atlanta Business Chronicle, February 21, 2008. Article: by Ian Sample, The Guardian, February 2, 2007. Article: by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, September 3, 2006. Article: , Mother Jones, May/June 2005 Article: by Joseph C. Wilson, The New York Times, July 6, 2003. Article: by Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, February 14, 2001. Article: by Thomas Raffa, Nonprofit Quarterly, September 21, 2000. Resources About Page: About Page: About Page: About Page: AEI Scholar List: AEI Scholar List: Alexander Hamilton Society: American Enterprise Institute: American Enterprise Institute: American Enterprise Institute: American Enterprise Institute: American Enterprise Institute: Armitage International: Biography: , Deputy Asst. Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Cambridge University Press: Center for New American Security: Center for New American Security: CRS Report: Center for Strategic & International Studies: Interactive Map: IRS: LinkedIn Account: LinkedIn Account: LinkedIn Account: Lockheed Martin: OpenSecrets: Park Hotels & Resorts: ManTech: M Report to Congress: Right Web: Search Results: Security Cooperation Programs: SourceWatch: SourceWatch Infographic: Tesla Investors: Website: Website: Website: Website: Website: Whitehouse Publication: Wilson Center: Wilson Center: World Trade Organization: , updated Nov 29, 2018 Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD186: National Endowment for Democracy

10 december 2018 | 128 min

The National Endowment for Democracy is a private foundation - that receives millions of our tax dollars - that pays groups to work to change the governments of other countries. In this episode, hear highlights from a hearing during which the president of this creepy organization and the presidents of two organizations that it funds - which are controlled entirely by members of the Republican and Democratic parties - will give you some insight into what kind of work they are doing manipulating information and interfering in elections in other countries around the world. Executive Producers: Anonymous, Garrick Smalley, Jerod Ewert & Brandon Lewis Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links to contribute monthly or a lump sum via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD175: CD172: CD167: CD117: CD113: CD102: Main Hearing Hearing: , Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, June 14, 2018. Full Hearing Watch on Witnesses: : National Endowment for Democracy: President : International Republican Institute: President : National Democratic Institute: President Timestamps & Transcripts 15:35 Representative Edward Royce (CA): At home, we must maintain the decades-old bipartisan consensus that democracy is a core element of U.S. foreign policy. That is why it’s important to have the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute here today, and that’s why it’s important that Congress continues to adequately fund these institutions. 24:30 Representative Edward Royce (CA): I’m pleased to welcome our distinguished guests here on the panel, including Mr. Carl Gershman, who has served as president of the National Endowment for Democracy since its founding in 1984. He’s a long-time friend of this committee. He’s respected worldwide for his work, especially in his efforts to help peaceably end the Cold War and transition countries from behind the Iron Curtain to democracy, and he’s done this through nongovernmental action. Before his time at NED, he was the senior counselor to the United States representative to the United Nations, where he worked on international human rights issues. 25:21 Representative Edward Royce (CA): Mr. Daniel Twining is the president of the International Republican Institute, and previously he served as the counselor and director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. He also worked here in Congress. He worked here as a foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain. 25:45 Representative Edward Royce (CA): And we have Mr. Kenneth Wollack. He is president of the National Democratic Institute, and he has co-edited the Middle East Policy Survey and written regularly on foreign affairs for the Los Angeles Times. 27:26 Carl Gershman: I’d call your attention, for example, to some recent events, among them the remarkable democratic transition in Gambia; the fall of the corrupt Zuma government in South Africa; the stunning victory of democracy in Malaysia, and the freeing of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim; the equally stunning triumph of democracy in Armenia; and the successful local elections in Tunisia that are, in my view, a decisive step forward in the Arab world’s first democracy. These are just a few of the examples that I could give of recent democratic advances. There is Slovakia, interesting developments in Ethiopia. Even in a country like Uzbekistan, we can see some glimmerings of some opening. 31:07 Carl Gershman: Other examples include the support that NED has given in Ukraine to the Anti-Corruption Action Center that has tirelessly led the campaign for the establishment of an independent anti-corruption court. And I’m pleased to report that just last week the Ukrainian parliament at long last approved legislation to create such a court. 37:25 Daniel Twining: In Europe, the Kremlin is deploying a sophisticated information-warfare campaign to undermine democratic institutions, erode citizen trust in democracy, and wedge apart the transatlantic alliance. This form of warfare is particularly insidious—this political warfare—because it uses core features of democracy against us—exploiting our free media, manipulating false information, undermining confidence in electoral systems. IRI’s Beacon Project is engaged in a big line of work to leverage our relationships for European political parties and civil-societies groups to track Russian misinformation, including in many local languages, and then to coordinate political responses to that. 31:46 Carl Gershman: The last example is the nonpartisan training conducted by four NGOs in Tunisia of new candidates who participated in last month’s local elections. Of the 235 individuals who were trained, 112 won seats, and 25 were at the heads of their electoral lists. 41:46 Kenneth Wollack: Authoritarian regimes are using digital tools to advance their interests, including electoral espionage and the dissemination of disinformation, to skew electoral outcomes, disrupt democratic discourse, discredit democratic institutions, and fuel ethnic and social divisions. NDI has responded by providing cybersecurity support; assisting efforts of civic, media, and political groups to detect, expose, and combat this information; and conducting new types of public-opinion research to identify populations that are most susceptible to Russian disinformation and develop messages that can build resilience. In cooperation with IRI and NED, NDI is helping to launch a new effort with democracy groups, civil-society organizations, civic-tech partners, political parties, and a global network of four million citizen election monitors to interact more regularly with the technology companies. 44:23 Kenneth Wollack: Ukrainians can point to concrete achievements in recent years. These include the emergence of new political parties that have national reach and are focused on citizens they represent rather than on oligarchs who would finance them. Brought together by NDI in partnership with the European Parliament, party factions in the Rada are overcoming deep fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it easier to build consensus around reforms. In NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens have engaged directly in the national reform process and reaching more than 1.3 million citizens through the media. 45:05 Kenneth Wollack: Another story of democratic resilience is unfolding in Syria. In northern Syria, citizen groups are prioritizing community needs, and local administrative councils are responding by providing critical services. Fifty NDI governance advisors are working each day in 34 locations to advise citizen groups and administrative councils, and bringing them together to solve problems. 49:19 Carl Gershman: But you’ve got to build a defense against it, and a lot of the groups that we helped stop fake news Ukraine and other groups like that are being able to identify fake information. We have a dialogue—a very ongoing dialogue—with the Internet companies to take down a lot of incitement, a lot of fake news. We’re connecting our grantees with the Internet companies. We have groups like Bellingcat, which is an investigative journalist group. They use open-source information. But they’ve identified the Russian general who provided the missile that shot down the Malaysian airliner. 51:30 Kenneth Wollack: But this a daily fight on the ground. Representative Edward Royce (CA): A social media fight? Wollack: Yes. To give you one example, the Democratic Party of Serbia, two weeks before the local elections, the Russians—presumably the Russians—had hacked their Facebook page, put horrible content on it. The hackers then contacted Facebook, told them to look at the site. Facebook immediately took down the Facebook page. Now, the party didn’t know who to contact. They had no contact with Facebook. They were able to contact us. Our office in Silicon Valley managed to reach the Facebook executives. They immediately took it down. 54:04 Representative Eliot Engel (NY): The budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 requested a $67 million for NED, which is a 60 percent cut from the amount which is $170 million that Congress has appropriated yearly since FY ’16. 54:59 Carl Gershman: I mean, there are, obviously, two fundamental problems with the OMB budget request for fiscal 2019: the amount and separating us from the four institutes. And both of these are devastating. I don’t even want to get into now what we would have to cut. They’re devastating—utterly devastating. It would virtually kill the whole program. 58:22 Daniel Twining: But in Malaysia, IRI’s been working with the opposition there since 2002. Malaysia was essentially a one-party majoritarian state. The ruling party had ruled since 1957. It had gerrymandered all the districts, given itself every advantage. But in this last election a month ago, the opposition won for the first time in 60-something years, and that was an example of playing the long game, right? We, the United States, supported a democratic opposition that is now in charge of this very strategic country right there on the front lines of the South China Sea, right there on the front lines of the Islamic world’s intersection with the rest of Asia, and that’s good for America. 1:09:12 Representative Gregory Meeks (NY): And Mr. Gershman, I’m a former board member at NED, so I’ve seen firsthand the work that you and your dedication and the bipartisan board of NED collectively working together to try to make sure that we have a better world for all of us. 1:12:20 Kenneth Wollack: Our engagement is not to spread falsehoods. It’s not to create fake news. It’s not to try to disrupt the process. It’s not to try to spur conflict in countries. What we’re trying to do is promote the principles, values, processes, and institutions that are enshrined in an intergovernmental organization. And our work is to try to help people engage in the political process. 1:16:34 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA):... did we or did we not involve ourselves heavily to undermine the democratically elected government of Yanukovych in Ukraine? And what did it bring us? It brought us turmoil and conflict—that if we’d have waited and let that government be elected, because of its flaws unelected, we would not be in this situation today where the world is more likely to go into conflict because of that. I don’t believe the Russians would’ve invaded Ukraine had we not arrogantly involved ourselves to overthrow that democratically elected government in Ukraine. 1:18:39 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA): So, I’ve had my say. I know I’m making everybody mad at me, but I had to say it. 1:25:59 Representative Brad Sherman (CA): And I want to turn our attention to Yerevan and Armenia. NED has allocated $1.3 million last year. Now we’ve seen a real move toward democracy. Are you going to do more, given the fluid situation there? Carl Gershman: Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Sherman. Yes. The answer is yes. Our board, which meets later this week, is making Armenia what we call a country eligible for contingency funds, which are funds set aside for new situations and, obviously, what’s happened in Armenia is very, very new. And we—I think there are several priorities that have to be addressed. There are going to be quick elections that have been called in Armenia, and those elections have to have integrity to them to give legitimacy to the current Pashinyan government. There is a parliament that oversees this, and government officials are really new to the governing game. The system has been controlled by a centralized authority for a number of years and so a lot of training is going to have to be necessary for some of the new government officials. And then, finally, there’s going to be a big information war, the kind of issue raised by Congressman Royce, and it is very essential in this period—and this is what the groups that we help are doing—is to get people reliable and independent information so they don’t make the judgments based upon the disinformation that is going to be promoted by the forces that have just been removed from power. 1:49:40 Representative Karen Bass (CA): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to welcome my colleagues from NED and IRI and NDI. And I’m a member of the NED board, for my colleagues that are here on the committee, and I have to say the work that NED does around the world is really tremendous. 2:07:52 Representative Ted Poe (TX): Globally, what do you personally see is the number-one entity that is a threat to democracy worldwide? Is it China? Is it Russia? Is it North Korea? Is it ISIS? Is it Iran? Pick one. Pick the one you think is the threat. Carl Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: China. Gershman: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Twining. Daniel Twining: China. Rep. Poe: Mr. Wollack. Kenneth Wollack: Russia. Rep. Poe: Russia. Russia and China. 2:35:00 Carl Gershman And I think it should not be forgotten: NED was created as an independent institution so that even when you have problems, whatever the problems are with the executive branch, our work continues consistently. And I think that was a brilliant idea, and it’s in the National Endowment for Democracy Act adopted by the Congress by Dante Fascell in 1983, and I think it was brilliant to give the NED that kind of independence so that we can go forward, regardless of what the policies of the executive branch are at any particular time. 2:47:46 Carl Gershman: I take pride in the fact that when we make grants to groups abroad, I take pride that it’s with American taxpayer money. We try to protect that money. We try to make sure that every single dollar is spent well. But I take pride in the fact that that’s a demonstration of the support coming from the American people. Sound Clip Sources News Interview: , CNN, June 10, 2018. 2:30 Sen. Diane Feinstein I mean we have helped support this whole Democratic Atlantic community and more or less forged it into a single entity. And I’ve been very proud of that as an American. Speech: , National Democratic Institute, YouTube, May 10, 2018. 10:50 Madeline Albright We are employing every tool at our disposal from the use of focus groups to the collection of more accurate data, to connections made through social media, to the design of election observer missions, to the drafting of model laws, to partnerships with regional bodies and the United Nations, to the mobilization of public opinion from around the equator and from pole to pole. Discussion: , Council on Foreign Affairs, January 23, 2018. Speakers: Joe Biden Richard Haass - President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Hearing: , House Select Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, November 1, 2017. Witnesses: Kent Walker Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett Twitter Acting General Counsel 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017. Witnesses Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 19, 2017. Witness Luis Almagro Secretary General of the Organization of American States 07:15 Senator Marco Rubio: I also know this, and I do not speak for the president, but I’ve certainly spoken to the president, and I will only reiterate what he has already said, and I’ve been saying this now for a number of days: it is my—I have 100% confidence that if democracy is destroyed once and for all in Venezuela on the 30th in terms of the Maduro regime, the president of the U.S. is prepared to act unilaterally in a significant and swift way. And that is not a threat; that is the reporting of the truth. Confirmation Hearing: , US Senate, C-SPAN, January 12, 2017. John McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We’ve not only put America first, but we’ve done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, C-SPAN, December 9, 2015. 2:28:14 Sen. Lindsey Graham Here’s what I’ve done. I make an offer to our president that I believe this war is going to go on for a long time after his presidency; I believe that they’re going to go wherever they can on the planet and that we should stop them wherever necessary; and when it comes to means, we should not limit this commander in chief or any other commander in chief when it comes to means. Speech: , NDI's DemTools Launch Event, December 9, 2015. 9:55 Howard Dean I’m incredibly proud to be a member of the board of NDI, which is an incredibly sophisticated organization that does not shrink from bringing democracy to any corner of the Earth, including some we’re not allowed in. We get there anyway. Speech: , YouTube, October 1, 2015. Conference: , Wilson Center, May 15, 2015. 15:35 Jane Harmon Ukraine. You and I were there together. Madeline lead the delegation - of course she did - for the National Democratic Institute, which she chairs and the International Republican Institute was also there during the first Ukraine election in May of last year. And among other things we met with the presidential candidates including Poroshenko and Tymoshenko and we tooled around in Kiev and I also went to Odessa to see how the voting was going. Speech: , US Senate, C-SPAN, January 27, 2015. 9:05 Sen. Dan Sullivan If the executive branch continues to dither on America’s economic future, Congress can and should act to expe- dite such projects. That is what we are doing with Keystone, and that is what I will be pressing the Congress to do for Alaska’s and America’s next great en- ergy infrastructure project—the Alas- ka LNG project—which will create thousands of jobs and provide clean and affordable energy to Americans and our allies for decades. Speech: , National Democratic Institute, December 11, 2014. 32:40 Vice President Joe Biden That’s why in Ukraine, working alongside groups like NDI, with your leadership, we’re providing to the Ukrainians, as we had to the Iraqi’s, personnel from each of our departments teaching them how to literally, as I said, write a budget, expertise from our Justice Department, teaching them the tools that are available to ensure that the court systems are free and transparent. We’re helping Ukrainian officials develop laws and regulations that will establish anti-corruption institutions within the government, enable authorities to combat corruption more effectively. Our militaries are working together to improve Ukrainian capacity to provide it’s own defense and a military system that meets the standards of democracies, while providing security assistance to counter Russian aggression. Speech: , National Democratic Institute, December 16, 2013. 1:30 Tom Daschle Like many of you, - by the mission of NDI. The realization that we have had one focus now for 3 decades. And that focus is very simply to empower people to be able to govern themselves more effectively. That’s what we try to do. Speech: , Virginia Military Institute, C-SPAN, October 8, 2012. 17:25 Mitt Romney Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts. Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. We led. News Interview: , BBC Interview, 1967. Additional Reading Article: by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, November 26, 2018. Article: by Joe Gould, Defense News, November 18, 2018. Article: by Patrick Brown, The Western Journal, October 13, 2018. Biography: , by Forrest C. Pogue, Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated October 12, 2018. Article: by Caitlin Johnstone, The Anti-Media, October 11, 2018. Article: by Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tony Romm, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Article: by Rhett Jones, Gizmodo, October 11, 2018. Article: by Jason Motlagh, Rolling Stone, August 9, 2018. Article: by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, August 3, 2018. Article: by Marc Jones, Reuters, July 25, 2018. Article: by Reuters, June 19, 2018. Article: by Tarek Amara, Reuters, May 8, 2018. Article: by Stephen Kinzer, The Boston Globe, March 14, 2018. Article: by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, March 4, 2018. Article: by Bridget Bowman, Roll Call, January 8, 2018. Article: by Vincent Bevins, The Atlantic, October 20, 2017. Article: by Timothy J. Burger, Town & Country Magazine, August 10, 2017. Article: by Carl Gersham , Journal Sentinel Online, October 22, 2016. Article: , International Republican Institute, August 18, 2016. Article: by Brian Hanley, Huffpost, March 28, 2016. Article: by Ivan Nechepurenko, The New York Times, March 11, 2016. Article: by Kelly Weill, Daily Beast, October 28, 2015. Article: by Alec Luhn, The Guardian, July 28, 2015. Article: by Carl Gershman, The Washington Post, September 26, 2013. Article: by Anne Applebaum, The Washington Post, September 20, 2013. Article: , The Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1988. Article: by David Binder, The New York Times Archives, December 30, 1976. Article: , The New York Times Archives, December 9, 1964. Resources About Page: About Page: About Page: - Who We Are Archived Form: Board of Directors: Board of Directors: Board of Directors: Donation Page: FAQs: - Who We Are Joint Statement: Project Info: Web Page: Letter: , Director of the Office of Management and Budget, December 20, 2017 OpenSecrets: Website: Website: YouTube Channel: Visual Resources Tweet: Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD185: Global Energy Outlook

26 november 2018 | 146 min

It’s impossible to analyze the political calculations of world leaders without factoring in global energy. In this episode, listen along with Jen and Joe Briney as they listen to a U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing examining the Global Energy Outlook, which has served to determine the foreign policy decisions of U.S. leaders throughout 2018. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, January 16, 2018. Watch on C-SPAN: Witness World Economic Forum: World Economic Forum: Debate: , C-SPAN, July 25, 2017. 15:15 Tim Ryan (OH): What’s happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not so dependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’ve also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Additional Reading Report: , Sputniknews, November 21, 2018. Article: , Russian Politics and Diplomacy, Tass.com, November 19, 2018. Article: by Jason Deign, GTM, November 13, 2018. Article: by Christopher Woody, Business Insider, October 24, 2018. Report: by Javier Blas, Grant Smith, and Francine Lacqua, Bloomberg, October 9, 2018. Report: , NATO, September 10, 2018. Report: by Corey Paul, S&P Global, August 23, 2018. Article: , The Economist, August 7, 2018. Report: , EIA, June 14, 2018. Analysis: by Philip Wight, Yale Environment 360, November 16, 2017. Statement: , U.S. Dept. of State, October 31, 2017. Article: by Chris Weller, Business Insider, June 29, 2017. Article: by Jeremy Herb and Connor O'Brien, Politico, January 8, 2017. Article: by Nafeez Ahmed, The Guardian, March 6, 2014. Resources American Oil & Gas Historical Society: Chatham House: Congressional Research Service: 2018 Government Funding Explanatory Statement: Dept. of Defense Budget FY 2019: East European Gas Analysis: Gazprom: Govtrack: Govtrack: Govtrack: Govtrack: Govtrack: International Energy Agency: International Energy Agency: International Energy Agency: International Energy Agency: OpenSecrets.org: OPEC: Public Law: Wikipedia: Visual Resources Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD184: Midterm Election

13 november 2018 | 171 min

Divided government! The 2018 midterm elections are over and we know what the 116th Congress is going to look like: The Republican Party will continue to control the Senate and the Democratic Party will control the House of Representatives. In this episode, we discuss the likely ramifications of a divided Congress, some of the interesting results of individual Congressional races, and the opportunities available for Republicans to get their last wishes rammed into law before their complete Congressional control ends in January. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD179: CD166: CD149: CD143: CD089: CD087: Additional Reading Article: by Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III, The New York Times, November 8, 2018. Article: by Tara Copp, Military Times, November 8, 2018. Article: by Brian Naylor, NPR, November 8, 2018. Article: by Julie Watson, WBTV, November 8, 2018. Article: by Brett Samuels, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Mike Lillis, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Aris Folley, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Jessie Hellmann, The Hill, November 11, 2018. Article: by Erick Tucker and Michael Balsamo, AP News, November 7, 2018. Article: by William J. Kole, Boston Globe, November 7, 2018. Article: by Miranda Green, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Mark Skoneki, Steven Lemongello, and Gray Rohrer, The Orlando Sentinel, November 7, 2018. Article: by Gromer Jeffers Jr., Dallas News, November 7, 2018. Article: by Adam Davidson, The New Yorker, November 7, 2018. Article: by Eric Katz, Government Executive, November 7, 2018. Article: by Justin Wise, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by AYŞE NUR DOK, TRT World, November 7, 2018. Article: by Karoun Demirjian, Tom Hamburger, and Gabriel Pogrund, The Washington Post, November 7, 2018. Article: by Aris Folley, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: by Dan Mangan, CNBC, November 7, 2018. Article: by Curtis Crabtree, NBC Sports, November 6, 2018. Article: by Max Greenwood, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Brett Samuels, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Jordain Carney, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Megan Keller, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Michael Burke, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Lisa Hagen, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Megan Keller, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Mike Lillis, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Emily Birnbaum, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Morgan Gstalter, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: by Bryan Lowry and Katy Bergen, The Kansas City Star, November 6, 2018. Article: by Timothy L. O'Brien, Bloomberg, November 1, 2018. Article: Sources: by Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Lauren Fox, and Gregory Wallace, CNN Politics, October 31, 2018. Article: by Ari Natter and Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Bloomberg, October 30, 2018. Article: by Julia Manchester, The Hill, October 29, 2018. Blog: by Rep. Bradley Byrne, The Hill, October 17, 2018. Article: by Paul Egan, Detroit Free Press, October 16, 2018. Article: says by Julia Manchester, The Hill, October 1, 2018. Article: by Umair Irfan, Vox, September 22, 2018. Article: by Laura Jarrett and Maeve Reston, CNN Politics, August 21, 2018. Article: by Tara Golshan, Vox, August 9, 2018. Article: by Rachel Cohrs, Dallas News, August 9, 2018. Article: by Katherine Ross, The Street, August 9, 2018. Article: by Renae Merle and Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, August 8, 2018. Article: by Josh Barro, Business Insider, August 8, 2018. Article: by Chris D'Angelo, Huffpost, July 23, 2018. Article: by Ben Lefebvre, Politico, July 18, 2018. Article: by Greg Zimmerman, Medium, June 5, 2018. Article: by Evlondo Cooper and Ted MacDonald, Media Matters for America, May 7, 2018. Article: by Livia Luan, Migration Policy Institute, May 2, 2018. Article: by David A. Fahrenthold and Jonathan O'Connell, The Washington Post, January 23, 2017. Article: by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, January 15, 2017. Article: by Jim Acosta, CNN Politics, December 16, 2014. Article: by Russ Choma, Open Secrets News, December 12, 2014. Article: by Rob Blackwell, American Banker, December 11, 2014. Article: by Dave Clarke, Kate Davidson, and Jon Prior, Politico, December 11, 2014. Resources ACLU Talking Points: Bill Overview: Live News: Company Announcement: Letter: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Wikipedia: Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Interview: , CNN Politics, November 8, 2018. News Conference: , C-SPAN, November 7, 2018. 19:30 Representative Nancy Pelosi: In any event, next week we look forward to welcoming our new class of freshmen. We will celebrate their diversity, the freshness of their thinking, and the rest. And they will immediately be incorporated into our building consensus and how we go forward in a very open, transparent, bipartisan, unifying Congress. Any questions? 21:10 Representative Nancy Pelosi: In appropriations and in many of the other committee—all of the other committees—we have a responsibility for oversight. And, hopefully, in the course of asking for information, we can just make the request and the information will come in. We’re concerned about what’s happening at EPA, for example, to degrading the air we breathe and the water we drink despite what the president said today. So, that’s only one example. 27:30 Unknown Speaker: Follow up on what the president said this morning. He made clear that if Democrats launch investigations, that any hopes for bipartisanship is off. Do you have any concerns that these investigations could jeopardize your opportunities to legislate? Representative Nancy Pelosi: We do not intend to abandon or relinquish our responsibility as Article I, the first branch of government, and our responsibilities for accountability, for oversight, and the rest. This doesn’t mean we go looking for a fight, but it means that if we see a need to go forward, we will. But that will be the work of our committees. Every committee has oversight responsibility. Congresswoman Eshoo’s on Energy and Commerce, and that’s a big oversight committee, as some of you probably are aware. But, specifically, to some of the concerns that the president may have, the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, the—well, there’re a number of committees that—depending on how we go down that path—the Financial Services committee, did I say Intelligence? Oh, Homeland Security Committee, because, of course, we are shamed as a nation by a policy that takes babies out of the arms of their mothers, that builds tents, and all the rest to house people, and there’s separation of families. So we want to look into that, and we would hope that we can do so by simply having oversight. If, in fact, requires a subpoena—I hope not, but—so be it. News Conference: , C-SPAN, November 7, 2018. 23:00 President Donald Trump: Their whole agenda has been to try not giving me anything for the wall. I really believe politically they’re hurting themselves. I actually think politically that’s a good thing for me, but I want to get the wall up because we need to— Unknown Speaker: So no shut-down scenario— President Trump: I don’t know. I can’t tell you that. Unknown Speaker: —for the, for the mid, for the lame duck. President Trump: No, I can’t commit to that, but it’s possible. News Conference: , APNews, YouTube, November 7, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, C-SPAN, August 16, 2018. 1:14:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: This is about the fourth or fifth time I’ve been on this dais, and no one seems to be worried about the fact that you all get to wash your hands of these children. You want to talk about catch and release? You’re catching these children and then you’re releasing them and everyone goes like this. Not my problem. I think the thing that really stuck out to me in the report that the committee issued was the finding—and this was finding number 14—HHS has a plan to notify state governments before placing unaccompanied children previously held in secure facilities, but HHS has failed to implement that plan. HHS explained it cannot implement the plan because it cannot determine who to notify in state government. Well, let me just tell you, Commander, I will make an offer to you today: I think my staff can get you a list of agencies and phone numbers before close of business tomorrow. Would that be helpful? Commander Jonathan White: I’ll be glad to convey that, but I think it does address—I think there are very real questions, but— Sen. McCaskill: No, they’re not. White: —widely appro— Sen. McCaskill: No. They’re not. Every state has a child-welfare agency. In Missouri, it’s the Missouri Department of Social Services, the Children’s Division, and they’re responsible for foster care, for child placement, for monitoring child detention centers, they are responsible for the welfare of children who have been separated from their families. And they have contacts in every corner of my state. There’s a hotline that they administer. There is all kinds of ways that they can communicate with school systems, with local governments, with all the people that are working as foster parents. There is a huge network in every single state, because you know what the states do? They take the responsibility for having children in their care seriously. 1:54:30 Senator Heidi Heitkamp: One facility provider basically, if my rough math is right, 11,000 children have been assigned to Southwest Key over a number of facilities, not one facility, but they’re obviously a large provider. The reports coming out of Dallas say that they basically, in a half-year period, have a contract that’s worth a half a billion dollars that they’re being paid, which, if you do the rough math, that’s about $45,000 per child. I think that we should have some pretty high expectations at $45,000 per child. So I would love a list of all the contractors that you currently have, the number of complaints, and the severity of the complaints, in each one of those cases, what disciplinary action has been, and how you’re cooperating consistently with state authorities, who usually are the licensing authorities, and I understand that. Audio Recording: , MSNBC, July 30, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, C-SPAN, July 16,2013. 3:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: I learned just this week that the Defense Department spent millions to construct a building in Afghanistan that has never been used. This facility was built despite the fact that the forward commander said they neither needed nor wanted this facility, in May 2010, almost a full year before construction began. We now have a brand-new state-of-the-art building that cost the taxpayers 34 million to build. The worst part is that all indications are, we’re going to tear it down. We can’t even give it away to the Afghanistan government for free because they don’t want a building that they will have to spend millions to rewire because it was built to U.S. electrical code. I also recently learned that more than 13 million may have been wasted on a USAID agricultural development contract with a company called Chemonics. The waste alone is bad enough, but the Special Inspector General also found that the contractor failed to cooperate with the audit. Frankly, that’s just unacceptable. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, C-SPAN, September 21, 2011. 46:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: I want to talk about something that I mentioned—and you mentioned in your report, but I think it’s something we need to flesh out for this committee—and that’s contractors being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Heartbreaking incident in Iraq, that I'm sure you all are aware of, where the negligence of one of our contractors killed one of our soldiers. And in trying to find justice for that family, the contractor avoided the jurisdiction of the United States, and the most insulting thing about it was he then got another—that company then got another contract with our government. After they had used the fact that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of our country as a way to avoid justice for this man’s family, we then decided we should sign up again with them. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD183: Tax Cuts... For Some of US

29 oktober 2018 | 130 min

Taxes: We all hate them but we all have to pay them. In December 2017, the Republicans in Congress rushed major changes to our tax policy into law. In this episode, host Jen Briney and her accountant friend, Alexis Claypool, explain the most significant changes to how our tax payments are going to be calculated and how these changes are likely to affect us. You will also learn about a major dingleberry that hitchhiked its way into law attached to this bill. Joe Briney joins Jen for the Thank Yous. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! . Modification of Rates Part II - . Deduction for Qualified Business Income Part III - . Increase in Standard Deduction . Increase in and Modification of Child Tax Credit. . Temporary Reduction in Medical Expense Deduction Floor. Part IV - Part V - . Limitation on Deduction for State and Local, etc. Taxes . Limitation on Deduction for Qualified Residence Interest . Suspension of Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions . Suspension of Exclusion for Qualified Bicycle Commuting Reimbursement . Suspension of Exclusion for Qualified Moving Expense Reimbursement . Suspension of Deduction for Moving Expenses . Repeal of Deduction for Alimony Payments Part VI - . Increase in Estate and Gift Tax Exemption Part VII - Part VIII - . Elimination of Shared Responsibility of Payment for Individuals Failing to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage . Repeal of Tax for Corporations . Increased Exemption for Individuals Part I - . 21-Percent Corporate Tax Rate Part II - . Modifications of Rules for Expensing Depreciable Business Assets Part III - . Temporary 100-Percent Expensing for Certain Business Assets . Modifications to Depreciation Limitations on Luxury Automobiles and Personal Use Property Part IV - . Limitation on Deduction for Interest . Limitation on Deduction by Employers of Expenses for Fringe Benefits . Denial of Deduction for Certain Fines, Penalties, and Other Amounts . Denial of Deduction for Settlements Subject to Nondisclosure Agreements Paid in Connection with Sexual Harassment or Sexual Abuse . Repeal of Deduction for Local Lobbying Expenses . Elimination of Deduction for Living Expenses Incurred by Members of Congress Part V - . Employer Credit for Paid Family and Medical Leave Part VI - . Limitation on Deduction for FDIC Premiums Part VII - . Excise Tax on Excess Tax-Exempt Organization Executive Compensation Part VII - . Excise Tax Based on Investment Income of Private Colleges and Universities Part IX - . Reduced Rate of Excise Tax on Beer . Reduced Rate of Excise Tax on Wine . Reduced Rate of Excise Tax on Certain Distilled Spirits Part 1 - . Deduction for Foreign-Source Portion of Dividends Received by Domestic Corporations from Specified 10-Percent Owned Foreign Corporations . Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income . Elimination of Inclusion of Foreign Base Company Oil Related Income Part II - Part III - . Oil and Gas Program . Strategic Petroleum Reserve Drawdown and Sale Additional Reading Article: by Brittany Benson, H&R Block, October 24, 2018. Article: by Jean Murray, The Balances MB, October 23, 2018. Article: by Terry Sheridan, Accounting Web, October 3, 2018. Article: by The Hill Staff, The Hill, September 28, 2018. Article: by Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch, September 19, 2018. Article: by Frank J. Vari, The Tax Adviser, August 2, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, The American Prospect, July 2, 2018. Article: by Jim Tankersley, The New York Times, June 25, 2018. Article: by Bobby M. Bragg, Jamison Money Farmer PC, May 29, 2018. Article: by Kelly Phillips Erb, Forbes, March 7, 2018. Article: by Christine Faris and Stephen Sutten, Baker Tilly, January 29, 2018. Article: by Michelle Andrews, NPR, January 23, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, Vice, January 10, 2018. Article: by Chuck Raasch, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 10, 2018. Article: by Michelle Andrews, Kaiser Health News, December 22, 2017. Article: by Ashlea Ebeling, Forbes, December 21, 2017. Article: by Matt Gerard, NBS, December 21, 2017. Article: by Victor I. Nava, Washington Examiner, December 20, 2017. Article: , Bloomberg News, December 18, 2017. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, December 18, 2017. Article: by Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, December 18, 2017. Article: by Jim Tankersley, The New York Times, December 16, 2017. Article: by Lee Fang, The Intercept, December 1, 2017. Article: by Mallory Shelbourne, The Hill, November 27, 2017. Article: by Jim Tankersley, Thomas Kaplan, and Alan Rappeport, The New York Times, November 2, 2017. Article: by David Dayen, The Nation, November 2, 2017. Article: by Robert W. Wood, Forbes, October 6, 2015. Resources CDC: Govtrack: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: Joint Committee on Taxation Publication: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Treasury.gov: Turbo Tax: USGS: Sound Clip Sources Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD182: Justice Kavanaugh

15 oktober 2018 | 155 min

It's done. Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice. Most of the media coverage of his confirmation centered on the sexual assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford but that's only one part of the story. In this episode, learn about the procedural tricks employed by Senate Republicans and the George W. Bush administration to place Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and hear highlights from over 40 hours of Brett Kavanaugh's policy-oriented confirmation hearings that most of the country didn't see. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD117: Additional Reading Blog: by Susan N. Herman, ACLU, October 3, 2018. Article: by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, September 16, 2018. Records: , related author Meghan M. Stuessy, FAS.org, August 27, 2018. Report: , ACLU, August 15, 2018. Article: by Manuela Tobias, Politifact, July 25, 2018. Article: by David Litt, The Washington Post, July 3, 2018. Article: by Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair, June 29, 2018. Article: by Adam Liptak and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, June 28, 2018. Article: by Francine McKenna, Market Watch, June 18, 2018. Article: by Renae Merle, The Washington Post, June 12, 2018. Article: by David Warren, Dallas News, February 2016. Article: by Sam Byford, The Verge, February 8, 2013. Resources Case Information: Executive Order: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, April 27, 2004. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 1:14:14 Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): Judges, if you’re confirmed, are not accountable to the public. You never stand for election again. You hold your office for life. Many of your decisions are unreviewable ultimately, and it leaves the American people subject to decisions in an anti-democratic forum unless that judge restrains him or herself and enforces the law as written or the Constitution as declared by the people of the United States. 1:24:15 Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): The question is secrecy in government, and this administration has shown more secrecy than any administration I’ve served with, from the Ford administration forward. You were the author, one of the first indicators of this increase in secrecy, Executive Order 13233, that drastically changed the Presidential Records Act. It gave former presidents, their representatives, and even the incumbent president, virtual veto power over what records of theirs would be released, posed a higher burden on researchers petitioning for access to what had been releasable papers in the past. After the order was issued, a number of historians, public interest organizations, opposed the change. The Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform approved a bill to reverse this. A lawsuit to overturn it was filed by Public Citizen, American Historical Association, Organization of American Historians, and a number of others. Why did you favor an increase in the secrecy of presidential records? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, with respect to President Bush's Executive Order, I think I want to clarify how you described it. It was an order that merely set forth the procedures for assertion of privilege by a former president, and let me explain what that means. The Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. GSA in 1977, opinion by Justice Brennan, had concluded that a former president still maintains a privilege over his records, even after he leaves office. This was somewhat unusual because there was an argument in the case that those are government records. But the Court concluded that both the current president and the former president have the right to assert privilege to prevent the release of presidential records. That’s obviously a complicated situation. The issue was coming to a head for the first time because there’s a 12-year period of repose, so 12 years after President Reagan left office was when this President Bush came into office, and there was a need to establish procedures. How’s this going to work, two different presidents asserting privilege or having the right to review? No one really had a good idea how this was going to work. The goal of the Order was merely to set forth procedures. It specifically says in Section 9 of the Order that it’s not designed in any way to suggest whether a former president or a current president should or should not assert privilege over his records. You’re quite right, Senator Leahy, that there was initial concern by historians about the Order. I think it was—I like to think it was based on a misunderstanding, and Judge Gonzales and I undertook to meet every 6 months or so with a large group of historians, first to discuss the Order and explain it, and then after that, to discuss any problems they were having with the Order, and to help improve it, if they suggested ways for improvement. I think those meetings, I think the historians who’ve come to see us, have found them useful, and I think we helped to explain what we had in mind and what the president's Order meant in terms of the procedure. So, that’s my explanation of that Order. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2006. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 58:44 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Kavanaugh’s parents. I’ve known them for a long time. Ed Kavanaugh, for many years, he headed up the major trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association, and he is deservedly admired by many in this town. And his mother served with distinction as a state court judge in Maryland for many, many years. 1:47:15 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Of course, as you know, I met you a number of years ago when I was Attorney General of Texas and had the honor to represent my state in an argument before the United States Supreme Court, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which involved a question of whether school children could voluntarily offer a prayer or an inspirational saying before school football games in Texas. And as you know, the Court ultimately ruled against that voluntary student prayer in the case. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, said that the Court's ruling exhibited hostility to all things religious in public life. And I’m very concerned about that because I do believe that the founders thought that the posture of the government with regard to religious expression should be one of neutrality, not hostility. I realize as a lower court judge you’re going to be bound by the Supreme Court's precedents, but I wonder if you would address the issue of religious liberty and religious speech insofar as how you believe in your position as a circuit court judge, how you would approach those issues. Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, if I were confirmed to be a D.C. Circuit judge, I would of course follow the precedent of the Santa Fe case. That case addressed a question that had been left open in the Lee v. Weisman case in 1992. In that case, there was a school-sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony where the government was actually involved, and one of the questions that was left open was, what happens if a student or a private speaker participates in a school event as a private speaker? And in the Santa Fe case, I think the Court concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it could be attributed to the school and so was a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the overall area represents a tension the Supreme Court has attempted to resolve throughout the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the Establishment Clause lines that the Court has set out for many years now. I know that the Court in recent years has made clear in a number of cases that private religious speech, religious people, religious organizations cannot be, or should not be, discriminated against and that treating religious speech, religious people, religious organizations equally—in other words, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations—is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. In past years there had been some suggestion that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations could sometimes be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the Court's really gone to a principle of equality of treatment does not ordinarily violate the Establishment Clause—again, equality of treatment of religious speech, religious people, religious organizations; equality in the public square. That's been something we've seen over the last, I'd say, decade or a little more. 2:04:00 Former Senator Sam Brownback (KS): But just give me your view of the Constitution as a document itself. Is this a—can you put yourself in a category? Do you have a view that it’s established as a living document, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution itself? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, I believe very much in interpreting text as it’s written and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. I believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policymaking role of the legislative branch in our constitutional democracy. I believe very much, as a prospective inferior court judge, were I to be confirmed, in following the Supreme Court precedent strictly and absolutely. Once as a lower court judge, I think that’s very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent, and so that’s something that I think’s very important. In terms of the independence of the judiciary, I think that’s something that’s the hallmark of our judiciary, the hallmark of our system, that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. I think that’s central to my understanding of the proper judicial role. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. 12:55 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of— Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —Brett Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —to serve as Associate Justice— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized for a question before we proceed? Unknown Speaker: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley: —of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed. The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order. Sen. Harris: —42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Sen. Grassley: You’re out of order. I’ll proceed. Sen. Harris: We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman, of this hearing. Sen. Grassley: I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: We have not been given an opportunity to have a— Sen. Grassley: —to his wife, Ashley— Sen. Harris: —meaningful hearing on the nominee. Sen. Grassley: —his two daughters, their extended family and friends— Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman— Sen. Grassley: —Judge Kavanaugh’s many law clerks— Sen. Hirono: —we received 42,000 documents that we haven’t been able— Sen. Grassley: —and everyone else joining us today. Sen. Hirono: —to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed. Sen. Grassley: I know this is an exciting day for all of you here, and you’re rightly proud of the judge. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): Mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: The American people— Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: —get to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we have been denied—we have been denied real access to the documents we need to advise— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order is called for. Sen. Blumenthal: —which turns this hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms. Sen. Grassley: Well— Sen. Blumenthal: And Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, move to adjourn this hearing. Sen. Grassley: Okay. Protester: This is a mockery and a travesty of justice. This is a travesty of justice, and we’ll not go back. Cancel Brett Kavanaugh. Adjourn the hearing. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Unknown Speaker: _______(02:07—What do we have to do? Trump? We may have to work with Trump. In a demonstrative adjourn, we have to have—) Unknown Speaker: We’re not in an executive session. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll-call vote on my motion to adjourn. 18:40 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, it is also— Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): I think that I— Sen. Hirono: Mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order for the majority— Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: —to require the minority to pre-clear our questions, our documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process that we wish to follow to question this nominee? Sen. Grassley: Senator— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your clarification. Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your response on why you are requesting— Sen. Grassley: —I would ask that you— Sen. Hirono: — ____(00:30) order to submit our questions, too. Sen. Grassley: —I ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isn’t going exactly the way that the minority would like to have it go— Protester: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —but we have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day, and I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. And you have heard my side of the aisle call for a regular order, and I think we ought to proceed in regular order. There will be plenty of opportunities to respond to the questions that the minority is— Protester 2: We didn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh. [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —legitimately raising. Unknown Speaker: Get her thrown out of here, my god. Protester 3: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: And we will proceed accordingly. Unknown Speaker: What did she say? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may I ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted— Protester 4: [unclear] Sen. Whitehouse: —if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question? Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or indeed is even an actual assertion of executive privilege? I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point, because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): Mr. Chairman, if I might add to this, on the integrity of the documents we’ve received, there really is no integrity. They have alterations, they have oddities, attachments are missing, emails are cut off halfway through a chain, recipient’s names are missing—many are of interest to this committee, but it’s cut off. The National Archives hasn’t had a chance to get us all that we want, even though you said on your website the National Archives would act as a check against any political interference. But— Protester 5: [unclear] Sen. Leahy: —I’d check after the hearing is over, there’s no check, I think we ought to at least have the National Archives finish it, and to have for the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there’s a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn’t made such a claim, just puts everything under doubt. What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing? Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 53:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, as a judge— Sen. Feinstein: As a judge. Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court—by “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—and reaffirm many times Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember, and I understand the significance of the issue, the jurisprudential issue, and I understand the significance, as best I can, I always try and I do hear, of the real-world effects of that decision, as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court. 1:02:35* Brett Kavanaugh: I can tell you about the U.S. v. Nixon precedent, and I did about Chief Justice Burger’s role in forging a unanimous opinion—and, really, all the justices worked together on that—but Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon—appointed by President Nixon—writes the opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, 8-0—Rehnquist was recused—8-0, ordering President Nixon to disclose the tapes in response to a criminal trial subpoena. A moment-of-crisis argument, I think July 8, 1974. They decided two weeks later a really important opinion, a moment of judicial independence, important precedent of the Supreme Court. 1:09:49 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I’d like to turn now to your work in the Bush administration. As you know, my Democratic colleagues are demanding to see every, every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the Bush administration, in part because they want to know what role, if any, you played in developing the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, Ranking Member Feinstein, who was then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a good one at that, issued a lengthy report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President Bush. The report detailed the origins, development, and implementation of the program. In 2014 a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version, or report, runs well over 500 pages, and your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I, myself, spent over 20 years on the Intelligence Committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do, and I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, I think the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, Judge Kavanaugh, I want to ask you for the record: what role, if any, did you play in developing or implementing the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, the policies that are reflected and described in Senator Feinstein’s extensive, thorough report were very controversial, as you know, Senator—the enhanced interrogation techniques— Sen. Hatch: Right, right. Kavanaugh: —and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved. I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to Senator Feinstein’s report, the Justice Department did a lengthy Office of Professional Responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name’s not in that report, Senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers—and this came up at my last hearing—a number of lawyers who were involved, including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing, I recall Senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other judicial nominees had been, and the answer was no, and that answer was accurate, and that answer’s been shown to be accurate by the Office of Professional Responsibility report, by Senator Feinstein’s thorough report. 2:37:49 Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): So when somebody says post-9/11, that we’ve been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? Brett Kavanaugh: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect. And that was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later. Sen. Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? Kavanaugh: There is such a body, Senator. Sen. Graham: Is there a body of law that’s called the basic criminal law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government? Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes. Sen. Graham: Okay. So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government. Sen. Graham: Is there a longstanding— Kavanaugh: That’s long-settled law. Sen. Graham: Isn’t there also a long-settled law that—it goes back to Eisentrager case—I can’t remember the name of it— Kavanaugh: Yeah, Johnson v. Eisentrager. Sen. Graham: Right. —that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants? Kavanaugh: They can be. Sen. Graham: Can be. Kavanaugh: They can be. They’re often—they’re sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense. Sen. Graham: Well, let’s talk about “can be.” I think the— Kavanaugh: Under Supreme Court precedent— Sen. Graham: Right. Kavanaugh: —just want to make….yeah. Sen. Graham: There’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct? Kavanaugh: That is correct. Sen. Graham: I think a couple of them were executed. Kavanaugh: Yeah. Sen. Graham: So if anybody doubts, there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case? Kavanaugh: Yeah. Hamdi. Sen. Graham: Okay. So the bottom line is I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those differences? Kavanaugh: I do understand that there’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 25:10 Brett Kavanaugh: My case, I upheld, importantly I upheld limits on contributions in the RNC case and in the Bluman case, and the Supreme Court has upheld contribution limits generally but struck them down when they’re too low in cases like Randall v. Sorrell, and McCutcheon. 54:45 Brett Kavanaugh: The religious tradition reflected in the First Amendment is a foundational part of American liberty, and it’s important for us as judges to recognize that and not—and recognize too that, as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. Our job—we can, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, question their sincerity of a religious belief, meaning, is someone lying or not about it? But we can’t question the reasonableness of it, and so the Supreme Court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected—Justice Brennan really the architect of that. So religious liberty is critical to the First Amendment and the American Constitution. 1:50:00 Brett Kavanaugh: All the significant wars in U.S. history have been congressionally authorized, with one major exception—the Korean War. And the Korean War is an anomaly in many respects, and I think some of—the fact that it was undeclared and unauthorized really did lead to the Youngstown decision. But, you know, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the AUMF against al Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq War, and then going back, World War II, World War I, the War of 1812—they’re all congressionally authorized. You can go back throughout, and I specify that. And so the war power, the power to take the nation into war, at least a significant one—and there’s some questions about short-term air strikes and things like that—but a significant war, that’s the biggest of all, and that’s something that Hamilton talked about in ’69 and that our historical practice, I think, is actually lived up to. I don’t mean to footnote Korea—that’s an enormous exception—but since then, they’ve all been congressionally authorized. 1:56:30 Senator Ben Sasse (NE): And one of the reasons that the executive branch seems so powerful right now is, again, because of how weak the legislature is. I mean, it’s a fundamental part of why we have the term “president.” In the 1780s, this wasn’t a very common term in the English language. “President” was just a nounified form of the name “presiding officer,” and we made it up, our founders made it up so that we wouldn’t have a term that sounded a lot like a king. And so we wanted to be sure that the term “presiding officer” sounded pretty boring and administrative, because the legislative, the policymaking powers were supposed to sit in this body, and the Article Two branch is supposed to preside over and execute the laws that have been passed. It’s not supposed to be the locus of all policymaking in America, but one of the reasons we have some of these problems with so many of these executive agencies is because Congress regularly doesn’t finish its work, punch those powers to Article Two, and then it’s not clear who exactly can execute all those authorities. And so we end up with this debate about the unitary executive, and you had a different term for it, but unpack for us a little bit why you have a different view about both the prudence and the constitutionality of one-person-headed independent executive agencies or pseudo-independent agencies versus commission-structure-headed independent agencies. Brett Kavanaugh: The traditional independent agencies that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 are multi-member independent agencies. And so usually sometimes three, five, occasionally more, but they’re multi-member independent agencies, and that’s been all the way through. And then the—for the significant independent agencies—the CFPB—and I had no—it’s not my role to question the policy or to question the creation of the new agency. In fact, I think it was designed for efficiency and centralization of certain overlapping authorities. It’s not my role to question that policy. Someone challenged the fact that it was headed, for the first time on something like this, by a single person. And a couple things, then, I wrote about in my dissent in that case—I’ll just repeat what I wrote in the dissent—I said, “First of all, that’s a departure from historical practice of independent agencies, and that matters according to the Supreme Court.” They had a previous case involving the PCAOB, where they had different innovation there that the Supreme Court had struck down in part because of the novelty of it. So departure from historical practice matters because precedent always matters, including executive precedent. Then, diminution of presidential authority beyond the traditional independent agencies in this sense. With traditional independent agencies, when a new president comes in office, almost immediately the president has been given the authority to designate a new chair of the independent agencies, so when a new—when President Obama came in, was able to designate new chairs of the various independent agencies, and the chairs, of course, set the policy direction and control the agenda. That’s historically been the way. That does not happen with the CFPB. And finally, having a single person—just going back to liberty—who’s in charge, who’s not removable at will by anyone, not accountable to Congress, in charge of a huge agency is something that’s different and has an effect on individual liberty. So a single person can make these enormous decisions—rule makings, adjudications, and enforcement decisions, all of them—and from my perspective—I am just repeating what I wrote here. I’m not intending to go beyond what I wrote in that opinion that was an issue of concern. And I did put in a hypothetical because it seems abstract that—I think we’ll realize this issue with that agency or any other—when a president comes in to office and has to live for three, four years with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president. And then I think everyone’s going to realize—of a different party— Sen. Sasse: Right. Kavanaugh: — in particular—and then I think everyone’s going to realize, wow, that’s an odd structure. Now, maybe not, but that’s what I wrote in my opinion that that will seem very weird because that’s not what happens with all the traditional independent agencies. And so whenever any president leaves and has appointed in the last two years a CFPB director, the new president might campaign on consumer protection. Let’s imagine, okay, presidential campaigns on consumer protection and consumer issues and then comes into office and can’t actually appoint a new CFPB director for the whole term of his or her office, that’s going to seem, I think, quite odd structurally. At least, that’s what I said in my opinion. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 4:45 Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): I want to talk about Jane Doe in Garza v. Hagen. As you know, she was a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor who came across this border, having escaped serious, threatening, horrific physical violence in her family, in her homeland. She braved horrific threats of rape and sexual exploitation as she crossed the border. She was eight weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, she received an order that entitled her to an abortion, and she also went through mandatory counseling, as required by Texas law. She was eligible for an abortion under that law. The Trump administration blocked her. The Office of Refugee Resettlement forced her to go to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was subjected to medically unnecessary procedures. She was punished by her continued requests to terminate her pregnancy by being isolated from the rest of the residents. She was also forced to notify her parents, which Texas law did not require. And the pregnancy, which was eight weeks, was four weeks further when you participated on a panel that upheld the Trump administration in blocking her efforts to terminate her pregnancy. The decision of that panel was overruled by a full court of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It reversed that panel, and the decision and opinion in that case commented “the flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.” And it said further, “The government’s insistence that it must not even stand back and permit abortion to go forward for someone in some form of custody is freakishly erratic.” In addition to being erratic, it also threatened her health because she was unable to terminate her pregnancy for weeks that further increased the risk of the procedure—one study said 38 percent every week her health was threatened. She was going through emotional turmoil. And yet, in your dissent, you would have further blocked and delayed that termination of pregnancy. All of what I said is correct, hence to the facts here, correct? Brett Kavanaugh: No, Senator. I respectfully disagree in various parts. My ruling, my position in the case would not have blocked— Sen. Blumenthal: It would have delayed it. And it would have set imperiously close to the 20-week limit under Texas law, correct? Kavanaugh: No. We were still several weeks away. I said several things that are important, I think. First— Sen. Blumenthal: Well, I want to go on because I can read your dissent, but I want to go to— Kavanaugh: Well, but you read several things, respectfully—first of all, I think the opinion was by one judge that you’re reading from that was not the opinion for the majority. Secondly, I was trying to follow precedent of the Supreme Court on parental consent, which allows some delays in the abortion procedure so as to fulfill the parental-consent requirements. I was reasoning by analogy from those. People can disagree, I understand, on whether we were following precedent, how to read that precedent, but I was trying to do so as faithfully as I could and explained that. I also did not join the separate opinion, the separate dissent, that said she had no right to attain an abortion. ____(04:29) I did not say that. And I also made clear that the government could not use this immigration-sponsor provision as a ruse to try to delay her abortion past, to your point, the time when it was safe. 21:15 Brett Kavanaugh: And I said, thirdly, that if the nine days or seven days expired, that the minor at that point—unless the government had some argument that had not unfolded yet that was persuasive, and since they hadn’t unfolded it yet, I’m not sure what that would have been—that the minor would have to be allowed to obtain the abortion at that time. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 30:35 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): It’s my understanding that by agreement with private lawyer Bill Burke, the chairman has designated 190,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s records “committee confidential,” and by doing this, Republicans argue members can’t use these documents at the hearing or release them to the public. Unlike the Intelligence Committee—and I’ve been a member for about two decades—the judiciary committee doesn’t have any standing rules on how and when documents are designated “committee confidential.” Previously, the judiciary committee has made material confidential only through bipartisan agreement. That has not been done in this case. So this is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy accepted documents on a committee-confidential basis during the Kagan administration. It’s my understanding that those documents were processed through the National Archives, not private partisan lawyers, and Republicans agreed. Ninety-nine percent of Elena Kagan’s White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. By contrast, the committee has only seven percent of Brett Kavanaugh’s White House records and only four percent of those are available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents “committee confidential.” So I have no idea how that stamp “committee confidential” got on these documents. 39:10 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Mr. Chairman, I’m looking at a Wall Street Journal article, back during the Elena Kagan nomination. It says, document production from Elena Kagan’s years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. So President Bush, by choosing Mr. Burke, is doing exactly what President Clinton did in choosing Bruce Lindsey for that same purpose. 1:51:22 Brett Kavanaugh: My religious beliefs have no relevance to my judging. I judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States. I take an oath to do that, and for 12 years I’ve lived up to that oath. At the same time, of course, as you point out, I am religious, and I am a Catholic, and I grew up attending Catholic schools. And the Constitution of the United States foresaw that religious people or people who are not religious are all equally American. As I’ve said in one of my opinions, the Newdow opinion, no matter what religion you are or no religion at all, we’re all equally American, and the Constitution of the United States also says in Article Six, no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That was an important provision to have in the founding Constitution to ensure that there was not discrimination against people who had a religion or people who didn’t have a religion. It’s a foundation of our country. We’re all equally American. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 22:30 Senator Mike Lee (UT): What you were asked about was whether or not you were involved in crafting the policies that would govern detention of enemy combatants. Is that right? Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And that was a classified program, classified at a very high level, presumably compartmentalized such that you would have had to have been read into that program in order to participate in that process. Is that right? Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. Read in. I wasn’t necessarily using the formal sense of that, but what I meant is I was not a part of that program. Sen. Lee: Okay. But that is a binary issue. You were either involved in the development of that policy or you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And Tim Flanigan, who was, I believe, at the time the White House counsel. Kavanaugh: He was the deputy counsel. Sen. Lee: The deputy counsel. Has confirmed that you were not involved in that. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: We have your word and the word of the then-deputy White House counsel. Then, there is a separate issue. Well, I guess one could argue a related issue, but a separate— Protesters: [unclear] Unknown Speaker: ____(01:17—I don’t know if it’s worth it, but he said something that got read into it. I don’t know whether people understand what it means.) Sen. Lee: I assume that won’t be counted against me, there. Unknown Speaker: It will be counted against you. Sen. Lee: Oh, okay. All right, well, I’ll have to speak more quickly then. When we talk about being read into, that is a colloquial term that we sometimes refer to. It’s government speak that talks about being cleared to discuss certain classified matters. In any event, you were not brought into the development of this policy. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: Secondly, there was a separate, arguable related, but a distinct issue involving a meeting where you were asked for your opinion about how Justice Kennedy might react to certain legal arguments that people in the administration were pushing. Is that right? Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you answered that question. Kavanaugh: I said that indefinite detention of an American citizen without access to a lawyer, which at the time was what was happening in that particular case, would never fly with Justice Kennedy. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 18:25 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): Specifically, what impact does technology have on the Fourth and the First Amendments? Brett Kavanaugh: So I think the Carpenter case explains that once upon a time if a piece of information of yours ended up in the hands of a third party, and the government got a third party, that really wasn’t of any effect on your privacy. But now when all of our data is in the hands of a business, a third party, and the government obtains all your data, all your emails, all your tax, all your information, your financial transactions, your whole life is in the hands of a data company, and the government gets that, your privacy is very well affected. And that’s the importance, I think, of the Carpenter decision is that it recognizes that change in understanding of our understandings of privacy, and I think going forward, that’s going to be a critical issue. 1:27:10 Brett Kavanaugh: One of the things that we have to do as judges, as I’ve emphasized many times in this hearing, is maintain the independence of the federal judiciary, independence from politics, independence from political influence or public pressure or public influence. And part of that, part of the canons for federal judges, federal judiciary, is that we don’t attend political rallies, we’re not allowed to donate to political campaigns, support political candidates, put bumper stickers on our cars, signs in our yards. And one of the things I decided—we are allowed, technically, to vote, but one of the things I decided after I voted in the first election, and I read something about how the second Justice Harlan decided not to vote in elections because he thought that reinforced the independence that he felt as a judge. And I thought about that, and I decided to follow that lead. I’m not saying my approach is right, and other judges take a different approach on that, and I fully respect that. But for me it just felt more consistent for me, with the independence of the judiciary, not to vote, because I’ve always considered voting a sacred responsibility and one in which I think very deeply about the policies I’m supporting and the people I’m supporting, and that seemed almost as if I were taking policy views, at least to myself, into the voting booth, and I didn’t want to do that as a judge. So I decided to follow the lead of the second Justice Harlan. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the second Justice Harlan. He was a great justice on the Supreme Court and someone, of course, who I would be—if I were to be confirmed—honored to be on that Court and follow in his lead. Senator John Kennedy (LA): So you don’t vote in political elections. Kavanaugh: I do not vote in political elections. Sen. Kennedy: Interesting. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 3:37 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind, into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me. And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging Brett on, and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing, and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 1:22:10 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: 100 percent. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 10:04 Brett Kavanaugh: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. 18:04 Brett Kavanaugh: From 2001 to 2006 I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As staff secretary, I was by President Bush’s side for three years and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. I travelled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, five and a half years in the White House. 2:57:20 Senator John Kennedy (LA): None of these allegations are true. Brett Kavanaugh: Correct. Sen. Kennedy: No doubt in your mind. Kavanaugh: Zero. I’m 100 percent certain. Sen. Kennedy: Not even a scintilla. Kavanaugh: Not a scintilla. One hundred percent certain, Senator. Sen. Kennedy: Do you swear to God? Kavanaugh: I swear to God. Meeting: , Senate Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2018. 4:12:55 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): I have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. We’ve had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure that we do due diligence here. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than, one week in order to let the FBI continue—to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and a limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor, with that understanding. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD181: Midterm Election Study Guide

29 september 2018 | 142 min

Our duty as voters is to judge the job performance of our members of Congress and decide whether or not they deserve to be re-hired or fired from their positions as lawmakers. In this episode, Jen summarizes 20 controversial bills and laws that passed during the 115th Congress which you can use to judge whether your Representative and two Senators have voted in your best interest. Links to all of the votes are listed in this episode's show notes on www.congressionaldish.com Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD174: CD163: CD157: CD151: CD129: CD069: CD048: Bills S.2155: , introduced Nov 16, 2017, enacted May 24, 2018. Outlined in detail in CD174: First significant re-writing of the banking laws since Dodd-Frank in 2010 Most significant change: Kills a Dodd-Frank requirement that banks with more than $50 billion in assets undergo stress tests to ensure their stabilityr. Bank Lobbyist Act changed that so stress tests will only be required for banks with over $250 billion. This exempts 25 of the 38 largest US banks from important regulations. Passed the Senate Passed House of Representatives H.R.1628: , introduced March 20, 2017, passed House May 4. 2017. Outlined in detail in CD151: There were quite a few versions of bills that would have ripped up the rules placed on insurance companies by the Affordable Care Act, but every version - including this one - eliminated the requirements that health insurance cover “essential health benefits”, which include: Ambulances Emergencies Hospital stays Maternity and newborn care Mental health Prescription drugs Rehab Lab work Preventative visits Dental and vision for children Would have also allowed - in some circumstance - insurance companies to charge us more for “pre-existing conditions” Passed the House of Representatives All Democrats no's 20 Republicans no’s , July 28, 2017. The “Skinny Repeal” is a wildly irresponsible 8 page bill, which was only available to read for a few hours before the vote, which also would have allowed the sale of health insurance that doesn’t cover the essential health benefits. This vote was the famous, dramatic moment when John McCain turned his thumb down and killed the bill. Get the full story in Failed Senate All Democrats and Independents voted no S.J.Res. 34: introduced March 7, 2017, enacted April 3, 2017. : Killed a regulation that applied the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet access and telecommunications providers. Required them to: Provide privacy notices that clearly and accurately inform customers Get opt-in or opt-out customer approval to use and share customer information Require opt-in’s when the company is making money from selling our information Secure our information Notify customers of data breaches Not condition service upon the customer’s surrender of privacy rights Passed Senate All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House - All Democrats no H.R. 21: , introduced January 3, 2017, passed House January 4, 2017. Allows Congress that they want to prevent into one bill so there is a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. This means that each one will not be carefully considered as is required now. Passed the House of Representatives Every Democrat voted no Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 26: , introduced January 3, 2017, passed House January 5, 2017. Changes the Congressional Review Act to require Congressional review of major agency regulations before they can go into effect. Passed the House all Republicans voted yes Has not been voted on in the Senate H.J.Res. 38: , introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 16, 2017. : Killed the “Stream Protection Rule”, which required permits to specify when coal mining would reach a damaging level for ground and surface water quality. Stricter water quality monitoring requirements in streams. Required land disturbed by mining be restored to a condition similar to what it was before the mining. Passed Senate Passed House H.J.Res. 41: introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 14, 2017. : Kills a regulation requiring fossil fuel companies to annually report any payments made by the company or a subsidiary to a foreign government or the Federal Government for the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. Passed Senate All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House H.J.Res. 44: , introduced January 30, 2017, enacted March 27, 2017. : Kills a regulation that enhanced opportunities for public involvement during the preparation of resource management plans by increasing public access to plans in earlier stages of the process, allowing the public to submit data and other information. Passed Senate All Republicans yes All Democrats and Indepedents no Passed House H.J.Res. 40: , introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 28, 2017. : Kills a regulation that required Federal agencies to give the Attorney General information on more people for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). People who would be added include people collecting disability benefits due to mental instability. Passed Senate All Republicans voted yes Passed House H.J.Res. 83: , introduced February 21, 2017, enacted April 3, 2017. : Kills a regulation that made clear that the requirement to record work-related injuries and illnesses is an ongoing obligation; the duty does not expire if the employer fails to create records in the first place. The records must be complete for as long as records are required, which is 5 years and citations can be issued for up to 6 months after that. Passed Senate All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House H.J.Res. 37: , introduced January 30, 2017, enacted March 27, 2017. : Kills a regulation that required contractors for the Defense Department, General Services Administration, and NASA to report their compliance with 14 federal labor laws, required contractors to provide documentation on “hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and additions to or deductions from pay” in each pay period, and limited mandatory arbitration of employee claims for contracts and subcontracts worth more than $1 million. Passed Senate All Republicans voted yes All Democrats and Independents voted no Passed House H.J.Res. 111: introduced July 20, 2017, enacted November 1, 2017. : Killed a regulation that prohibited banks and other financial institutions from forcing arbitration in their contracts to prevent customers from filing and participating in class action lawsuits. Passed Senate VP Mike Pence broke the tie All Democrats and Independents voted no Passed House All Democrats voted no S.J.Res. 57: introduced March 22, 2018, enacted May 21, 2018. : Killed a regulation that included auto dealers in the definition of “creditor” for the purpose of prohibiting them from discriminating in any way in a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or welfare assistance. Passed Senate All Republicans yes All Independents no Passed House S. 204: , introduced January 24, 2017, enacted May 30, 2018. Allows who have exhausted approved treatment options and can’t participate in a clinical trial on an experimental drug that has not been FDA approved to get that drug directly from the drug company, with a doctor’s approval. Allows drug companies to sell their unapproved drugs directly to customers as long as the drugs have to have been through . This law says the Secretary of HHS can’t use the clinical outcomes of the patient’s use of the drug the review or approval of the drug, unless he/she certifies it’s for safety reasons or the drug company requests that data be used. Gives to the drug companies, prescribers, dispensers or an “other individual entity” unless there is willful misconduct, gross negligence, to the intentional breaking of a state law. Passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) Passed House on May 22 All Republican votes were yes's Along with 22 Democrats H.R. 772: , introduced January 31, 2017, passed House February 6, 2018. from telling us the number of calories in the standard menu item as usually prepared to allowing them to tell us the calories per serving, with them determining what a serving is. restaurants to choose whether they will display calories by entire combo meals, by individual items in combos, by servings in items in combos. Let’s them use ranges, averages, or “other methods” as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (making it a decision of political appointee) that restaurants provide calories in store if “the majority of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises” to get any signed certifications of compliance. for violating nutrition disclosure laws. Passed the House Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 2936: , introduced June 20, 2017, passed House November 1, 2017. Allows more wood to be removed by the logging industry from Federal Forests and exempts them some from environmental regulations Passed House Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 4606: , passed House September 6, 2018. the importation or exportation of natural gas to be “consistent with the public interest” and says the applications for importation or exportation “shall be granted without modification or delay” if the volume does not exceed 0.14 billion cubic feet per day and if the application doesn’t require an environmental impact statement. Passed House Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 1119: , introduced Febraury 16, 2017, passed House March 8, 2018. Says the EPA must give of if their steam generators will comply with emissions standards for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. The EPA is not allowed to require compliance with both Passed House Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 3053: , introduced June 26, 2017, passed House May 10, 2018. Forces the continuance of the process of moving all the nuclear waste in the United States to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Grants the entire US government for damages caused in the course of “any mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing activity” conducted on the land reserved for nuclear waste disposal. for interim storage and basically Would by 57% the amount of spent fuel allowed to be held during construction - no environmental review to make sure the tanks can hold this much The Secretary of Energy does need to consider alternative actions or no-action alternatives to infrastructure projects needed for Yucca mountain as far as environmental analysis are concerned. Passed the House of Representatives Has not been voted on in the Senate H.R. 7: , introduced January 13, 2017, passed House January 24, 2017. Makes permanent a common funding law amendment that prevents federal money from being used to perform abortions. This bill would also prevent any government payment assistance on the health insurance exchanges for plans that cover abortion - which effectively would stop health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage in their plans since that would make them ineligible for many of us to purchase. Passed the House of Representatives 238-183 All Republicans voted yes Has not been voted on in the Senate Additional Reading Article: by Robbie Gramer and Elias Groll, Foreign Policy, September 6, 2018. Article: by Beatrice Adler-Bolton, Jacobin Magazine, August 12, 2018. Article: by Michelle Cortez, Bloomberg, June 20, 2018. Article: by Michael Collins, USA Today, June 3, 2018. Report: , U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, May 31, 2018. Article: by Anna Edney, Bloomberg, May 31, 2018. Opinion: by Michael D. Becker, NPR, May 24, 2018. Article: , Gottlieb says by Ike Swetlitz and Erin Mershon, Stat News, May 17, 2018. Article: by Ripon Advance News Service, May 14, 2018. Article: by Humberto Sanchez, The Nevada Independent, May 11, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, March 2, 2018. Article: by Erin Mershon, Stat News, January 18, 2018. Statement: by Scott Gottlieb, FDA.gov, October 3, 2017. Article: by Tami Luhby, CNN Money, July 28, 2017. Article: by Sandee LaMotte, CNN, April 4, 2017. Report: by Lydia Wheeler, The Hill, January 4, 2017. Article: by Fred Hosier, Safety News Alert, December 21, 2016. Opinion: by The Times Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, December 8, 2016. Article: by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, The Washington Post, October 27, 2016. Article: by Shahien Nasiripour, Huffpost, April 25, 2014. Report: by Brian Ross, Maddy Sauer, And Justin Rood, ABC News, December 10, 2007. Resources Company Information: Congressional Publication: , Oct 10, 2001. Court Report: Disease Information: , MDA.org Explanatory Statement: Fact Sheet: FDA: Law Resolutions: Letter: Letter to the Senate: LinkedIn Profile: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Study Report: Sound Clip Sources House Session: , HouseLive.gov. 6:13:00 - Rep. Mike Burgess (TX) "The bill we will be voting out soon is about patients. It is about having more time with their loved ones. In the words of Vice President MIKE PENCE, ‘‘It’s about restoring hope and giving patients with life-threatening diseases a fighting chance.’’ With hundreds of thousands of Americans with a terminal illness and their families looking for us to act, I urge Members of this House, the people’s House, to support restoring hope and giving them a fighting chance at life." Hearing: , May 10, 2018. 32:00 Representative Greg Walden (OR): You know, the Department of Energy’s Hanford site is just up the mighty Columbia River from where I live and where I grew up. That area and those workers helped us win World War II, and the site’s nuclear program was instrumental in projecting peace through strength throughout the Cold War. While the community has been a constructive partner in support of our vital national security missions, it did not agree to serve as a perpetual storage site for the resulting nuclear waste. Fifty-six million gallons of toxic waste sitting in decades-old metal tanks at Hanford—these are those tanks that were being constructed to hold this waste. They are now buried in the ground. The only entry point is right here. The amount of waste stored at Hanford would fill this entire House Chamber 20 times over. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, the oldest of these tanks, some of which date back to the 1940s, have single-layer walls, or shells. They were built to last 20 years. They will be almost 100 years old by the estimated end of their waste treatment. The Department of Energy has reported that 67 of these tanks are assumed or known to have leaked waste into the soil. There is an understandable sense of urgency in the Northwest behind the cleanup efforts that are under way at Hanford. H.R. 3053 will provide the pathway to clean up the contaminated Hanford site. You see, the waste from Hanford will end up in a secure permanent storage site that we believe will be Yucca Mountain. 35:15 Representative Greg Walden (OR): The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to contract with private companies to store nuclear waste while DOE finishes the rigorous scientific analysis of the repository design and the associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. So, an interim storage facility can bring added flexibility to DOE’s disposal program and may provide a more expeditious near-term pathway to consolidate spent nuclear fuel. 41.31 Representative Fred Upton (MI): In my district, we have two nuclear plants. Both of them have run out of room in their storage, so they have dry casks that are literally a John Shimkus baseball throw away from Lake Michigan. Every one of these 100-some sites across the country is in an environmentally sensitive area, and at some point they’re going to run out of room. In Michigan, we’ve got two other sites that also have dry casks in addition to the two in my district. 45:05 Representative Buddy Carter (GA): This legislation is important not only because of what it means to the future of clean-energy opportunities for this country, but also what this means for our communities. Nuclear energy has become a safe and effective way to generate energy, all while not producing greenhouse gas emissions. 53:29 Representative Leonard Lance (NJ): New Jersey is home to four nuclear reactors at three generating stations: Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, and Salem. Oyster Creek will be closing this October. In the congressional district I serve, these plants account for about half of the power generation and 90 percent of the carbon-free electricity. New Jersey’s nuclear plants avoid 14 million tons of carbon emissions each year. Public Service, FirstEnergy, and Exelon are doing their part in storing their station’s spent nuclear fuel on-site, but we need a permanent site. The expertise and know-how of the federal government has a responsibility to my constituents and to the American people. I want the 3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste out of New Jersey and consolidated in a national protected facility. 58:54 Representative Dina Titus (NV): The first ‘‘Screw Nevada’’ bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada’s residents, elected officials, business leaders, health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record over 100 letters from those groups in opposition. 59:19 Representative Dina Titus (NV): You’ve heard that the legislation before you now, ‘‘Screw Nevada 2.0,’’ is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It’s not the facts. Here are the facts: the legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry. It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain. It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project. It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed. It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs—is it already three minutes? Chairman: Gentlewoman’s time has expired. Representative Paul Tonko: Mr. Speaker, we grant the gentlelady another minute. Chairman: Gentlelady’s recognized. Rep. Titus: Thank you. —to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits. Also, contrary to the sponsor’s comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts. Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts. 1:03:53 Representative Ruben Kihuen (NV): You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it offensive. I sit here and listen to all my colleagues, and they all want to send nuclear waste to the state of Nevada. They’re all generating this nuclear waste, and they want to send it to my backyard right in the Fourth Congressional District. You know, bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker: if you generate nuclear waste, you should keep it in your own backyard. Don’t be sending it to our backyard. 1:11:27 Representative Joe Courtney (CT): Next to me is a picture of Haddam Neck, Connecticut, which is a pristine part of the state where the Connecticut River and the Salmon River come together. Where the circle is on the photograph, there are 43 casks of spent nuclear power uranium rods that, again, today, pretty much cordon off that whole area. If you drove up in a car, you’d be met by a platoon of heavily armed security guards who, for good reason, have to patrol that area every single day because of the dangerous material that is stored there. That has been the case for over 20 years. It costs Connecticut ratepayers $10 million a year, again, for a site that should be long overdue for renovation and access to folks from all over the world because of its rich archeological and historical area. This bill provides a way out for this area, along with 120 other sites across the country, that host communities have been saddled with storage of spent nuclear fuel because of the fact that this country has been unable to come together with a coherent policy. And this bill provides a way out. 1:15:23 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA): This bill authorizes the construction of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage site, which would alleviate the burden of incredible risk that is now borne by communities throughout the country, such as in my district, where homes are not far located from the closed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. That, and many other plants throughout the nation, have closed their doors in decades. Yet, Congress has yet to agree of how to safely store that waste, while—and what’s really important is we must store the waste—but while we develop new nuclear energy technologies, that we are capable of doing, that are safe and produce less of their own waste and can consume the waste of older plants—I reminded Secretary of Energy Perry of that yesterday—but, in the meantime, until that technology—by the way, it is sinful that we have not developed that technology, which we are capable of, that could eat this waste—but until we do, having safe storage at Yucca Mountain makes all the sense to me and is safe for my constituents. 1:17:07 Representative Rick Allen (GA): Mr. Speaker, I have the great honor of representing Georgia’s 12th Congressional District, which is home to every nuclear reactor in our state, and we are leading the way in the new nuclear. At Plant Vogtle, in my district, there are thousands of spent fuel rods being held in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage containers, and in the next few years we’re going to double the number of nuclear reactors online at Vogtle. Hearing: , November 1, 2017. 3:02:49 Representative Bruce Poliquin (MA): Now, H.R. 2936 brings federal regulations in line with this new technology and new standards of safety by allowing family-owned logging business the ability to train 16- and 17-year-olds under very close supervision of their parents. 3:23:31 Representative Greg Walden (OR): In Oregon, this bill would take away arbitrary prohibition on harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter. It’s tied the hands of our forest managers. 3:28:00 Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA): I represent the Colville National Forest, which is about a million-acre forest. It’s really the engine of our economy in the Northwest, because what happens on the Colville National Forest determines whether or not we have Vaagen’s lumber or 49 Degrees North ski resort or the biomass facility that Avista runs, converting wood waste into electricity. This is all providing jobs, energy, recreational opportunities. Yet mills have been closed, jobs have been lost. It’s unacceptable. It’s time to pass the Resilient Federal Forests legislation. 5:32:57 Representative Jeff Denham (CA): The Resilient Federal Forests Act gives us the tools to immediately reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. It allows us to expedite the removal of dead trees and rapidly mitigate disease-infested areas. 5:41:58 Representative Louie Gohmert (TX): If you want to just leave it to nature, nature will destroy massive numbers of acres of land. So we have a responsibility. Even in the Garden of Eden when things were perfect, God said, tend the garden. 6:06:29 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the 113th and the 114th Congress, where it languished on the shelf because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too extreme. Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise, this time around, today, we are considering a bill that is even more extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers, added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back protections for national monuments and roadless areas. 6:07:39 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): But this bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation; it’s about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests. 6:18:24 Representative Tom McClintock (CA): You know, there’s an old adage that excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other—it’s either carried out or it burns out. When we carried it out, we had resilient, healthy forests and a thriving economy, as excess timber was sold and harvested before it could choke our forests to death. In the years since then, we’ve seen an 80 percent decline in timber sales from our federal lands and a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by forest fire. I would remind my friend from Oregon that timber sales used to generate us money, not cost us money. The direct revenues and spin-off commerce generated by these sales provided a stream of revenues that we could then use to improve our national forests and share with the local communities affected. 6:22:38 Representative Jared Huffman (CA): Title I of this bill allows intensive logging projects of 10,000 to 30,000 acres each. That’s as big as the entire city of San Francisco. Projects of that size can proceed on federal public lands without any environmental review under NEPA, without any compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Title II of the bill eliminates the requirement that the Forest Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service; essentially, lets the Forest Service decide for itself if it wants to follow the Endangered Species Act consultation requirements regarding any of its projects on public lands. Title III further chokes judicial review by prohibiting the recovery of attorneys' fees for any challenges to forest management activity under the Equal Access to Justice Act, including meritorious successful challenges. This severely limits public review of logging projects on federal public lands. Hearing: , Energy & Commerce, October 3, 2017. House Session: , Houselive.gov 4:15:30 - Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) "For the freshmen of either party,when you go to make a vote on this, re-member, we are not changing the un-derlying law. Only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16 years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and the President concur. Video: , YouTube, July 23, 2012. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD180: How Congress Spent Your Taxes in 2018

10 september 2018 | 150 min

Every year, the President submits a budget request to Congress, but how much attention does Congress pay to those requests? In this episode, we compare the Trump administration requests to the amounts actually provided by Congress for fiscal year 2018. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD062: Additional Reading Report: , MyPlainview, September 4, 2018. Article: , Delaware Business Now, September 4, 2018. Community Bulletin: , Mauntain Xpress, September 4, 2018. Article: by Robert H. Frank, The New York Times, August 31, 2018. Report: by ABQJournal News Staff, Albuquerque Journal, August 30th, 2018. Report: by BGSU Marketing and Communications, Sentinel-Tribune, August 29, 2018. Report: by Bill Chappell, NPR, August 28, 2018. Ranking: by Hillary Hoffower, Business Insider, July 28, 2018. Article: by Robert J. Terry, Washington Business Journal, May 4, 2018. Report: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, March 8, 2018. Article: by Mark Binelli, The New York Times, September 5, 2017. Article: by Anthony Price, New York Business Journal, April 27, 2017. Article: by Eillie Anzilotti, Fast Company, March 16, 2017. Article: by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, December 8, 2016. Article: , by Ron Nixon, The New York Times, November 2, 2016. Report: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 5, 2016. Report: , Eligibility.com, February 6, 2016. Report: by Jason Miller, Federal News Radio, January 6, 2016. Report: by Meredith Somers, Federal News Radio, November 10, 2015. Article: by Lindsey Bever, The Washington Post, April 21, 2014. Report: by Clare O'Connor, Forbes, April 15, 2014. Resources About Page: American Council on Education: The American Presidency Project: Analysis: , Congressional Budget Office, July 13, 2017. Aviation Security International Info: , June 10, 2014. Congress.gov Resources: Congressional Research Service: Congressional Research Service: EDA.gov: FedBizOpps.gov: Medicaid.gov Info: National & Community Service Info: Office of Community Service Programs: Programs Report: TSA Info: U.S. Department of Labor Info: Budget Outline School breakfast program equipment grants Trump administration requested to eliminate the grants Congress increased funding by 20%, to a total of $30 million Total for all Child Nutrition Programs Trump administration requested a 6% increase Congress increased the budget by a little less than Trump wanted to a total of $24.2 billion Trump administration requested a 6.5% cut, or almost $5 billion Congress cut by a little under 6% for a total of a little over $74 billion Trump administration requested an almost 90% cut Congress increased the budget by almost 8%, to a total of a little over $2 billion Trump administration requested to change how the FDA is funded Trump administration requested that the FDA’s tax money cut by 34% but then wanted to make up the almost $1 billion shortfall and add funding by increasing fees on drug producers. All of these fees are paid by the companies in order to fund the expedited FDA approval process for their products: Medical devices and drugs for humans: Trump administration requested a 67% increase in prescription drug user fees Congress increased by 21% Trump administration requested a 90% increase in generic drug user fees Congress increased by 53% Trump administration requested an almost 350% increase in medical device user fees Congress increased by 53% Animal drugs: Trump administration requested an over 300% increase in animal drug user fees Congress decreased by 23% Trump administration requested a 163% increase in animal generic drug user fees Congress decreased by 17% Tobacco fees Trump administration requested an almost 6% increase in fees Congress enacted Trump’s request Trump administration requested an about 5% cut, or $422 million Congress increased the budget by about 3%, to a total of almost $9 billion Trump administration requested to cut “Reimbursement for net realized losses” by almost 18%, an almost $4 billion cut Congress cut it more, by 33%, or $7 billion, to a total of $14.3 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested an 89% cut Congress increased the budget by 9%, to a total of a little over $300 million Trump administration requested an 82% cut Congress increased the budget by about 15% to a total of $39 million Total funding: Trump administration requested a 91% cut Congress increased its funding by 6%, to a total of $410 million Trump administration requested an over 30% cut Congress increased funding by over 30%, to a total of over $1.6 billion Trump administration requested a 44% cut Congress increased the funding by over 14% to about $280 million Total funding: Trump administration requested a 16% cut Congress increased the funding by 4%, to a total of almost $6 billion Trump administration requested an 11% cut Congress increased their budget by 4%, to a total of $7.7 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested a 6% funding increase Congress increased by over 10%, by more than $61 billion, to a total of over $647 billion Total funding Trump administration requested a 5% funding increase Congress increased funding just slightly more than Trump’s request, to a total of over $65 billion A new category requested by the Trump administration, Congress provided the over $2.2 million request. Trump administration requested to eliminate all $750 million in funding Congress almost doubled the National Guard’s War on Terror equipment fund to $1.3 billion. ” Trump administration requested to eliminate all $150 million in funding Congress increased the funding by a third to $200 million Trump administration requested to increase funding by 16% Congress increased funding by over 9%, to a total of over $4.6 billion Trump administration requested to increase by 83% Congress increased funding by Trump’s exact request, to a total of over $1.7 billion Trump administration requested a 14% increase, by more than $10 billion Congress increased funding by 22%, to a total of over $88 billion Total Trump administration requested a 5% increase Congress increased funding by over 23%, to a total of $133.8 billion Army aircraft Trump administration requested a 9% cut Congress increased the budget by 21%, to $5.5 billion Navy aircraft Trump administration requested a 7% cut worth over $1 billion Congress increased funding by almost 24%, by almost $4 billion, to a total of almost $20 billion Navy shipbuilding Trump administration requested a 3.5% cut Congress increased the budget by 13% to a total of $23.8 billion Army weapons and combat vehicles Trump administration requested a 8% increase Congress almost doubled the funding, to a total of almost $4.4 billion Air force aircraft Trump administration requested an 8% increase Congress decided to increase the budget by almost 30%, to a total of $18.5 billion Defense Construction Department of Veterans Affairs: Grand total: Navy Trump administration requested Navy OCO funding be eliminated Congress cut funding by 87%, to a total of $13 million Army Trump administration requested $124 million, up from $0 in 2017 Congress provided 5% more than the request, a total of over $130 million Air Force Trump administration requested funding to double Congress increased funding by 164%, to a total of over $275 million Reserve funding for every branch was eliminated Total Trump administration requested a 7% increase Congress increased funding by 8%, to a total of $750 million Army Trump administration requested a 16% cut Congress granted the Trump administration’s request for almost $16 million Navy Trump administration requested a 13% cut Congress cut funding by 7%, to a total of almost $20 million Air Force Trump administration requested a 300% increase Congress granted the Trump administration’s request for over $270 million Total Congress increased funding by 153%, to a total of over $306 million Trump administration requested a 40% increase Congress provided a 42% increase, to a total of over $11 billion Veterans Administration Trump administration requested a 5% cut Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $722 million Trump administration requested a 3% increase Congress provided 4.5% increase, to a total of over $185 billion Total funding: Sustainable Transportation Trump administration requested a 70% cut Congress increased funding by 10%, to a total of $674 million Energy Efficiency Trump administration requested a 70% cut, including the complete elimination of weatherization programs and energy program grants to the states. Congress increased funding by 13%m to a total of $858 million Renewable Energy Trump administration requested a 70% cut Congress increased funding by 15%, to a total of $519 million Solar energy: $241 million Water power: $105 million Wind energy: $92 million Geothermal technologies: $81 million Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Total Trump administration requested almost a 70% cut Congress increased funding by 11%, to a total of over $2.3 billion Trump administration requested a 58% cut Congress increased funding by 9%, to a total of $726 million Trump administration requested to cut funding almost in half Congress increased funding by about 20%, to a total of $669 million , including Carbon Capture and Storage Trump administration requested a 73% cut Congress increased funding by 14%, to a total of over $481 million Trump administration requested a 25% cut Congress increased funding by 25%, to a total of over $410 million Transmission Reliability Trump administration requested a 64% cut Congress increased funding by 8%, to a total of $39 million Resilient distribution systems Trump administration requested an 80% cut Congress cut funding by 25%, to a total of $38 million Energy Storage Trump administration requested a 75% cut Congress increased funding by 30%, to a total of $41 million Total Trump requested research be cut almost in half Congress increased funding by almost 8%, to a total of $248 million Total funding: Trump administration requested a 94% cut Congress increased funding by less than 1%, to a even total of $250 million Trump administration requested a 10% cut Congress granted his exact request, for a total of about $71 million : Entrepreneurial Development Program Trump administration requested a 22% cut Congress increased funding by less than 1%, to a total of $247 million Total funding: Trump administration requested to increase management budgets over 16% Congress increased their budgets by almost 19% Chief Financial Officer: 12% increase Chief Readiness Support Officer: 31% increase Chief Human Capital Officer: 82% increase Trump administration requested a 19% cut Congress increased by 21%, to a total of $362 million Trump administration requested a 4% cut Congress cut funding by 6%, to a total of almost $246 million : Congress instructed DHS to continue increasing field personnel to State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers that provide outreach to “critical infrastructure owners and operators” Total funding: Border Patrol Assets and Support Trump administration requested an increase of 17% Congress increased funding by 9%, to a total of $625 million Border Patrol Office of Training and Development Trump administration requested an increase of 43% Congress increased funding by 19%, to a total of $64 million Total Border Patrol Operations Trump administration requested an increase of 4.5% Congress increased funding by a little over 1%, to a total of $4.4 billion Trump administration requested an increase of 167% Congress increased funding by 196%, almost double, to a total of over $2.2 billion : "CBP is directed to work with federal and industry partners to evaluate the potential use of commercially developed, space-based technologies to provide persistent, real-time border surveillance...” Total funding: Custody Operations Trump administration requested a 33% increase Congress increased funding by 14%, to a total of over $3 billion Criminal Alien Program Trump administration requested a 32% increase Congress increased funding by 2%, to a total of $319 million Transportation and Removal Program Trump administration requested a 36% increase Congress increased funding by 4%, to a total of $369 million Alternatives to Detention Trump administration requested a 2% cut Congress increased funding by 2%, to a total of $187 million Total Funding for Enforcement and Removal Operations Trump administration requested a 31% increase Congress increased funding by 11%, to a total of $4.1 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested an almost 3% cut Congress increased the funding by 0.2%, to a total of $3.2 billion Trump administration requested a 2.5% cut Congress granted the Trump administration’s request, cutting funding to a total of $233 million Trump administration requested a 36% increase Congress increased funding by 40%, to a total of $398 million : Funding increase is aimed at implementation of a plan “to analyze and test perimeter intrusion detection and deterrence technologies” Checkpoint Support Trump administration requested a 96% cut Congress cut funding by 39%, to a total of $68 million : the funding increases are meant to speed up the purchase of new x-ray equipment Checked Baggage Trump administration requested a 44% cut Congress increased funding by 41%, to a total of $83 million Trump administration requested a 1% cut Congress increased funding by over 5%, to a total of $185 million Trump administration requested a 12% increase Congress increased funding by 13%, to a total of $646 million Trump administration requested a 21% cut Congress barely increased funding to $218 million Total funding: Preparedness and Protection Trump administration requested a 10% cut Congress granted the Trump administration’s request, cutting funding to a total of $132 million Operations Trump administration requested a 3% cut Congress cut funding by about 1.5%, to a total of a little over $1 billion $23.5 billion is appropriated in this law State Homeland Security grant Trump administration requested a 25% cut Congress increased funding by 8%, tot a total of $507 million Public Transportation Security Assistance Trump administration requested a 52% cut Congress maintained funding at $100 million Port Security Trump administration requested a 52% cut Congress maintained funding at $100 million Emergency Management Performance Trump administration requested a 20% cut Congress maintained funding at $350 million National Predisaster Mitigation Fund Trump administration requested a 61% cut Congress increased funding by 149%, to a total of $249 million Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress increased funding by 48%, to a total of $262 million Emergency Food and Shelter Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress maintained funding at $120 million Trump administration requested a 7% cut Congress increased funding by 8%, to a total of $12.5 billion Total funding: Wildlife and Fisheries Trump administration requested a 25% cut Congress maintained funding at $103 million Endangered species Trump administration requested a 6% cut Congress maintained funding at $22 million Abandoned land mines Trump administration requested a 55% cut Congress maintained funding at $20 million Hazardous materials management Trump administration requested a 33% cut Congress maintained funding at $15 million Recreation management Trump administration requested a 12% cut Congress increased funding by 1%, to a total of $73 million Oil and Gas management Trump administration requested a 12% increase Congress increased funding by 27%, to a total of $86 million Coal management Trump administration requested a 90% increase Congress provided a 10% increase, to a total of $12 million Renewable energy Trump administration requested a 45% cut Congress cut funding by about 2%, to a total of $28 million Trump administration requested to cut every single category, an overall 14% cut Congress increased the funding 5%, to a total of $1.6 billion Trump administration requested a 13% cut Congress increased funding by 9%, to a total of $3.2 billion Earthquake hazards Trump administration requested a 20% cut Congress increased funding by 30%, to a total of $83 million Volcano hazards Trump administration requested a 21% cut Congress increased funding by 52%, to a total of $43 million National Water Quality Trump administration requested an 18% cut Congress maintained funding at $90 million Water availability science Trump administration requested a 33% cut Congress increased funding by 2%, to a total of $46 million Overall Trump administration requested a 19% cut Congress increased funding by almost 1%, to a total of $218 million Environmental enforcement Trump administration requested a 47% cut Congress granted the Trump administration’s request, cutting funding to a total of only $4.4 million Trump administration requested a 7% cut Congress barely increased the funding, to a total of $948 million Air and energy Trump administration requested a 67% cut Congress maintained funding at $92 million Safe and sustainable water resources Trump administration requested a 36% cut Congress maintained funding at $106 million Trump administration requested a 48% cut Congress maintained funding at $273 million Trump administration requested a 19% cut Congress maintained funding at $240 million Trump administration requested all of them eliminated. Congress increased funding by 3%, to a total of $47 million Trump administration requested a 93% cut Congress maintained funding at $28 million Trump administration requested a 17% cut Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $109 million Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress increased funding by 4%, to a total of $109 million Trump administration requested that the programs be eliminated Congress maintained funding at $27 million Trump administration requested a 18% cut Congress maintained funding at $98 million Trump administration requested a 17% cut Congress maintained funding at $210 million Trump administration requested a 40% cut Congress maintained funding at $166 million Trump administration requested a 28% cut Congress increased funding by half a percent, to a total of $721 million Pollution control Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress maintained funding at $230 million State and local air quality management Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress maintained funding at $228 million Public water system supervision Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress maintained funding at $102 million Underground injection control (UIC) Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress maintained funding at $10 million Pesticides enforcement Trump administration requested a 40% cut Congress maintained funding at $18 million Beaches protection Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress maintained funding at under $10 million Lead Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress maintained funding at $14 million Pollution prevention Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress maintained funding at $5 million Total grant funding Trump administration requested a 44% cut Congress increased funding by 1%, to a total of just over $1 billion Trump administration requested that the program be eliminated Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $87 million Trump administration requested a 47% cut Congress maintained the funding at $220 million Women’s Bureau Trump administration requested a 75% cut Congress increased funding by 8%, to a total of $13 million International Labor Affairs Trump administration requested a 75% cut Congress maintained the funding at $86 million Chief Financial Officer Trump administration requested a 93% increase Congress Congress increased funding by 87%, to a total of $10.4 million Trump administration requested an 18% cut Congress slightly increased funding, to a total of $13.7 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 6%, to a total of $88 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 26%, to a total of $49 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 11%, to a total of $40 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 27%, to a total of $38 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 270%, to a total of $37 million Trump administration requested a 64% cut Congress increased funding by 9%, to a total of $250 million Block Grants Trump administration requested a 4% increase Congress increased funding by 1.5% to over $650 million Healthy Start Trump administration requested a 24% increase Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $110 million Programs the Trump administration requested eliminated: Sickle Cell Anemia Demonstration Program Autism and other developmental disorders Heritable disorders Universal newborn hearing screening Emergency medical services for children Total Trump administration requested an 8% cut Congress increased funding by 3, including funding for two new programs: Screening and Treatment for Maternal Depression Pediatric Mental Health Care Access Trump administration requested a 27% cut Congress increased funding by 2%, to a total of $140 million Trump administration requested an 82% cut Congress increased funding by 86%, to a total of over $290 million Trump administration requested an almost 10% cut Congress increased funding by 3%, to a total of $1.45 billion Trump administration requested a 20% cut Congress increased funding by 14%, to a total of over $7.2 billion Institutes that the Trump administration requested to eliminate: National Cancer Institute National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institute of General Medical Sciences National Eye Institute National Institute on Aging National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Institute on Deafness National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institute of Mental Health National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities The only thing he wanted to increase was a 40% increase to the “NIH Innovation Account, CURES Act2/“ (which Congress granted) and he wanted to create a new “National Institute for Research on Safety and Quality”, a request that Congress ignored. Trump administration requested a 22% cut Congress increased funding by about 8%, to a total of about $3 billion Trump requested and received an 8% increase, up to $284 billion Trump administration requested an 8% increase Congress increased funding by a little more than requested, to a total of over $747 billion Trump administration requested to eliminate the $3.3 billion program Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $3.6 billion Unaccompanied Minors Trump administration requested to maintain funding Congress increased funding by 37%, to a total of $1.3 billion Total Trump administration requested a 13% cut Congress increased funding by 11%, to a total of $1.8 billion Trump administration requested to eliminate the program Congress maintained funding at $1.7 billion Preschool Development Grants Trump administration requested to eliminate the program Congress maintained funding at $250 million Total Trump administration requested a 9% cut Congress increased funding by 6%, to a total of over $12 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested an 84% cut Congress increased funding by 17%, to a total of over $5 billion Trump administration requested a 46% increase Congress increased funding by 17%, to a total of $400 million Trump administration requested a 5% cut Congress increased funding by 1%, to a total of $24.4 billion Trump administration requested to eliminate all programs - domestic and overseas Congress maintained funding at $72 million Trump administration requested a 7% cut Congress increased funding by 3%, to a total of $74 billion Trump administration requested a 90% cut Congress increased funding by 4%, to a total of $240 million AmeriCorps grants Trump administration requested a 99% cut Congress increased funding by 7%, to a total of $412 million Trump administration requested an over 99% cut Congress maintained the funding at $445 million Total funding: Total Trump administration requested a 35% cut Congress cut funding by 2%, to a total of $1.7 billion Trump administration requested to eliminate the program Congress maintained funding at $17 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the program Congress maintained funding at $17 million Trump administration requested a 49% cut Congress maintained funding at $38 million Trump administration requested a 40% cut Congress maintained funding at $170 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the fund Congress increased funding 2%, to a total of $215 million Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased the funding by 157%, to a total of $750 million Inter-American Foundation Trump administration requested an 80% cut Congress maintained funding at $22.5 million US African Development Foundation Trump administration requested a 70% cut Congress maintained funding at $30 million Drug War Trump administration requested a 22% cut Congress increased funding 7%, to a total of $950 million Anti-terrorism and nonproliferation Trump administration requested a 37% cut Congress increased funding by 30%, to a total of $655 million Peacekeeping operations Trump administration requested a 10% cut Congress increased by 57%, to a total of $212 million Congress provided: Israel: $3.1 billion Egypt: $1.3 billion Other: $1.2 billion World Bank Group Trump administration requested an over 12% cut Congress cut funding by 10%, to a total of over $1.2 billion Asian Development Fund Trump administration requested a 52% cut Congress granted the Trump administration request, cutting to a total of $43 million African Development Bank Trump administration requested a 17% cut Congress granted the Trump administration request, cutting to a total of $204 million Trump administration requested a 30% cut Congress cut funding by 12%, to a total of $1.9 billion State: GWOT “Transition Initiatives” Trump administration requested a 37% increase Congress granted the $62 million request GWOT Drug War Trump administration requested a 52% cut Congress increased by 1% to $418 million GWOT Nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs Trump administration requested a 7 % increase Congress cut almost 40% GWOT Foreign Military Financing Program Trump administration requested a 66% cut Congress cut by 65% to $460 million GWOT State Dept Total Trump administration requested a 27% cut Congress cut funding by 27%, to $12 billion Total funding: Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 200%, to a total of $1.5 billion even Federal State Partnership for State of Good Repair Trump administration requested a 4% increase Congress increased the funding by 900%, to a total of $250 million even Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Trump administration requested a 63% cut Congress increased funding by 770%, to a total of $592 million. Northeast Trump administration requested a 28% cut Congress increased the funding 98%, to a total of $650 million National Network Trump administration requested a 55% cut Congress increased funding by 10%, to a total of $1.3 billion Total Trump administration requested a 38% cut Congress increased funding 67%, to a little over $3 billion Operations and Training Trump administration requested a 2% cut Congress increased the funding by 193%, to over $500 million Ship disposal Trump administration requested a 70% cut Congress increased funding by 241%, to $116 million Total Trump administration requested a 25% cut Congress increased funding by 87%, to a total of $979 million Trump administration requested an over 11% cut Congress increased funding by 47%, to a total of $27.2 billion. Trump administration requested an 11% cut Congress increased the funding by 320%, to a total of $505 million Total: Trump administration requested a 5% cut Congress increased funding by 8%, to a total of $22 billion Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding by 10%, to a total of over $3.3 billion Congress added another $28 billion in emergency money Trump administration requested to eliminate the funding Congress increased funding 43%, to a total of $1.3 billion Trump administration requested a less than 1% cut Congress increased over 8% to $12.5 billion Sound Clip Sources Video: , C-SPAN, May 23, 2017. News Report: , foreign aid, Fox News, March 16, 2017. News Report: , NBC Nightly News, March 16, 2018. Video: ," YouTube, January 28, 2018. Radio Interview: ' Federal News Radio, July 5, 2016. Video Clip: YouTube, August 30, 2012. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD179: Hearing: Who's Tracking the Immigrant Kids?

27 augusti 2018 | 184 min

In an experimental follow-up episode, listen along with Jen and Joe to the highlights of a Senate hearing examining the progress that has been made towards caring for the immigrant children who have been either taken from their immigrant parents or who arrived in the U.S. alone. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD177: CD176: Additional Reading Article: by Kerri Harris in a Democratic primary by David Dayen, The Intercept, August 22, 2018. Report: by Amrit Cheng, ACLU, August 21, 2018. Staff Report: by Rob Portman and Tom Carper, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, August 15, 2018. Article: by Michael E. Miller, The Washington Post, August 9, 2018. Report: by Samantha Schmidt, The Washington Post, July 31, 2018. Report: , Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 30, 2018. Article: by Dianne Solis and James Barragan, Dallas News, June 25, 2018. Report: by Agnel Philip, AZCentral, July 25, 2018. Article: by Emily Kassie, The New York Times, July 17, 2018. Article: by Michael Biesecker, Jake Pearson, and Garance Burke, USA Today, June 21, 2018. Article: by Kausha Luna, Center for Immigration Studies, June 21, 2017. Article: , CNBC, May 4, 2017. Article: by Dawn Paley, The Nation, December 21, 2016. Report: by Alex Murtha, Homeland Preparedeness News, September 23, 2016. Article: by Laura Iesue, COHA, August 1, 2016. Resources Court Settlement Agreement: , August 15, 2018. Organization Overview: Regional Plan: White House Fact Sheet: , March 3, 2015. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, August 16, 2018. Hearing: , Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, August 16, 2018. Witnesses: Richard Hudson: Acting Chief of Law Enforcement Operations, US Border Patrol, US Department of Homeland Security Robert Guadian: Acting Deputy Assistant Diretor for Field Operations West, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Dept of Homeland Security Commander Jonathan D. White: U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Federal Health Coordinating Official for the 2018 Reunification Effort, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services James McHenry: Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, US Dept of Justice Hearing: , Senate Finance Committee, C-SPAN, June 26, 2018. Witness: Alex Azar - Health and Human Services Secretary Sound Clips: 27:50 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): How many kids who were in your custody because of the zero-tolerance policy have been reunified with a parent or a relative? Alex Azar: So, I believe we have had a high of over 2,300 children that were separated from their parents as a result of the enforcement policy. We now have 2,047. Hearing: , Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, May 22, 2018. Witnesses: Ronald Vitiello - Acting Depury Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection Lee Francis Cissna - Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Thomas Homan - Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sound Clips: 41:33 Thomas Homan: They’re separating families for two reasons. Number one, they can’t prove the relationship—and we’ve had many cases where children had been trafficked by people that weren’t their parents, and we’re concerned about the child. The other issues are when they’re prosecuted, then they’re separated. 37:40 Representative Filemon Vela (TX): So, with this new policy in place, at the point that you’re in a situation where you decide to separate the families, where do the minors go? Vitiello: The decision is to prosecute 100%. If that happens to be a family member, then HHS would then take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child. 39:58 Thomas Homan: As far as the question on HHS, under the Homeland Security Act 2002, we’re required, both the Border Patrol and ICE, to release unaccompanied children to HHS within 72 hours. So, we simply—once they identify within that 72 hours a bed someplace in the country, our job is to get that child to that bed. Then HHS, their responsibility is to reunite that child sometime with a parent and make sure that child gets released to a sponsor that’s being vetted. Speech: , CBS SF BayArea, May 7, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be overwhelmed. People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need legality and integrity in the system. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take up those cases. I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. Hearing: , Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, C-SPAN, April 26, 2018. Witnesses: James McCament - Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Dept. of Homeland Security Steven Wagner - Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration for Children and Facilities at the Dept. of Health and Human Services Kathryn Larin - Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office Sound Clips: 45:05 Kathryn Larin: In 2015, we reported that the interagency process to refer unaccompanied children from DHS to ORR shelters was inefficient and vulnerable to error. We recommended that DHS and HHS develop a joint collaborative process for the referral and placement of unaccompanied children. In response, the agencies recently developed a memorandum of agreement that provides a framework for coordinating responsibilities. However, it is still under review and has not yet been implemented. 1:51:28 Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner, give me a timeframe. Wagner: Sir, we have to incorporate the new MOA in the draft JCO. Honestly, we are months away, but I promise to work diligently to bring it to a conclusion. 1:57:15 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Okay, we learned this morning that about half, maybe up to 58%, of these kids who are being placed with sponsors don’t show up at the immigration hearings. I mean, they just aren’t showing up. So when a sponsor signs the sponsorship agreement, my understanding is they commit to getting these children to their court proceedings. Is that accurate, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: That is accurate. And in addition, they go through the orientation on responsibilities of custodians. Sen. Portman: So, when a child does not show up, HHS has an agreement with the sponsor that has been violated, and HHS, my understanding, is not even notified if the child fails to show up to the proceedings. Is that accurate? Wagner: That is accurate, Senator. Sen. Portman: So you have an agreement with the sponsor. They have to provide this agreement with you, HHS. The child doesn’t show up, and you’re not even notified. So I would ask you, how could you possibly enforce the commitment that you have, the agreement that you have, with the sponsor if you don’t have that information? Wagner: I think you’re right. We have no mechanism for enforcing the agreement if they fail to show up for the hearing. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD178: Election Insecurity

1 augusti 2018 | 141 min

Since the 2016 election, our country has been questioning whether our elections are secure, fair, and accurate. In this episode, we examine the threats to our election administration, both real and overblown. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Report: by Adia Robinson, ABC News, July 24, 2018. Article: by Lawrence Norden, Slate, July 26, 2018. Article: by Sam Biddle, The Intercept, June 20, 2018. Article: by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, June 11, 2018. Article: by Clare Malone, FiveThirtyEight, April 10, 2018. Report: by Lawrence Norden and Wilfred U. Codrington III, Brennan Center for Justice, March 8, 2018. Article: by Doug Rossinow, The Washington Post, March 6, 2018. Article: by Olivia Beavers, The Hill, March 6, 2018. Article: by Kim Zetter, The New York Times, February 21, 2018. Article: , Financial Times, 2018. Article: by Andrew Liptak, The Verge, September 10, 2017. Report: by Iain Thomson, The Register, July 29, 2017. Article: by Tim Elfrink, Miami New Times, June 6, 2017. Report: by Steve Holland, Reuters, October 25, 2016. Article: by L. Michael Hager, Foreign Policy Journal, March 22, 2016. Article: by Adam Kredo, The Washington Free Beacon, July 17, 2015. Article: by Megan McCarthy, Fortune, November 4, 2014. Report: by Bob Fitrakis, Columbus Free Press, October 31, 2013. Article: by Kim Zetter, Wired, March 26, 2008. Letter: , GAO, September 2005. Article: by Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, March 2005. Article: by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Mother Jones, March 5, 2004. Resources Brennan Center for Justice: Congress.gov: GovTrack: Internet Research Agency Indictment: John Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Report: Justice.gov: Source Watch: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Rules and Administration Committee, C-SPAN, June 20, 2018. Witnesses: Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Jim Condos - Vermont Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft - Missouri Secretary of State Steve Simon - Minnesota Secretary of State Connie Lawson - Indiana Secretary of State Shane Schoeller - Clerk for Greene County, Missouri Noah Praetz - Director of Elections for Cook County, Illinois 2:40 Senator Roy Blunt (MO): January of 2017, the Department of Homeland Security designated our country’s election infrastructure to be critical infrastructure. This designation began the formalization of information sharing and collaboration among state, local, and federal governments through the creation of a Government Coordinating Council, some of our witness this day are already sitting on that newly formed council. More recently, in the 2018 omnibus, Congress appropriated right at $380 million to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to help states enhance their election infrastructure. As of this week, 38 states have requested $250 million of that money, and about 150 million of it has already been disbursed to the states. 6:45 Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): So, we have a bill, Senator Lankford and I along with Senator Harris and Graham and Warner and Burr, Heinrich, and Collins. It’s a bipartisan bill called the Secure Elections Act, and we have been working to make changes to it along the way and introduce it as amendment, but it really does four things. First of all, improves information sharing between local election officials, cyber-security experts, and national-security personnel. Second, providing for development and maintenance of cyber-security best practices. We all know, I think there’s five states that don’t have backup paper ballots, and then there's something like nine more that have partial backup paper ballots. And while we’re not mandating what each state does, and we do not want each state to have the exact same election equipment—we think that would be a problem and could potentially lend itself to more break-ins—we think it’s really important that we have some floor and standards that we set that given what we know, I don’t think we’d be doing our democracy any good if we didn’t share that and we didn’t put in some floors. Third, the bill will promote better auditing our election’s use of paper backup systems, which I mentioned, and finally, it’s focused on providing election officials with much-needed resources. As you all know, we were able to get $380 million to be immediately distributed to the state, not play money, money that’s going out right now to states across the country, based on populations. We didn’t have some complicated grant process that would have slowed things down. The money went directly to state election officials as long as the state legislature authorizes it to get accepted and get to work to update their systems. 11:50 Jay Ashcroft: But before we move forward, we should briefly look back to the impetus of why we are all here today: allegations that outside actors threaten the integrity of our elections during the 2016 election cycle. While these are serious allegations, it is vitally important to understand that after two years of investigation, there is no credible—and I could strike “credible” and just put “evidence”—there is no evidence that these incidents caused a single vote or a single voter registration to be improperly altered during the 2016 election cycle. It was not our votes or our election systems that were hacked; it was the people’s perception of our elections. 30:50 Matthew Masterson: For those voters who have questions or concerns regarding the security or integrity of the process, I implore you to get involved. Become a poll worker; watch pre-election testing of the systems, or post-election audits; check your registration information before elections; engage with your state- and local-election officials; and most importantly, go vote. The best response to those who wish to undermine faith in our democracy is to participate and to vote. 1:08:00 Senator Roy Blunt (MO): Should the federal government make an audit trail, a paper audit trail, a requirement to have federal assistance? Jay Ashcroft: I don’t think so. Jim Condos: I do think so. Steve Simon: I think there is a federal interest in making sure that there's some audit process. Sen. Blunt: Well, now, what I’m asking about is, should there be a way to recreate the actual election itself? And I don’t know quite how to do that without paper, even if you had a machine that was not accessible to the web. Jay Ashcroft: I believe states are moving to do that, without federal legislation. So that’s why I don’t think that federal legislation needs to be done to that. 1:23:30 Shane Schoeller: I do want to address one area that concerns Secure Elections Act, that is on page 23, lines three, four, and five. It says, “Each election result is determined by tabulating marked ballots, hand or device.” I strongly recommend for post-election auditing purposes that a state-marked paper ballots, because I believe the opportunity for fraud in electronic ballot-casting system that does not have a paper trail’s too great. *1:32:00 Shane Schoeller: Even if you do a post audit with the machine, how would you know if something’s been compromised if you can’t at least compare the results of the paper ballot. And I think that’s the assurance it gives. Clearly, the machine, when you have an accurate election, does do a better job of counting the ballots. I’m talking about in the case where clearly fraud has occurred, then the paper ballot is going to be the evidence you need in terms of if your system inside that machine is compromised. 1:32:30 Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): I think for a while people were talking about, well, why doesn’t everyone just vote from home, which is great when you can mail in a ballot, we know that, but vote from home just from your computer, and that would mean no paper records of anything. Could you comment about that? Noah Praetz: I think that’s 100% inappropriate for civil elections. Sen. Klobuchar: Got it. Shane Schoeller: I find it ironic because this is my first term, although I ran for this office in 2014, that was actually a common theme that I heard. Sen. Klobuchar: Right. I was hearing it, and I was—I kept thinking— Schoeller: Mm-hmm. Sen. Klobuchar: —about our state with, they’re not going to keep dwelling on it, with that high voter turnout. But, you know, that involved a paper ballot— voice off-mic: incredible integrity. Sen. Klobuchar: —and incredible integrity. But it involved people—they could vote by mail, and we’ve made that even easier, but they had actual paper ballots that they did, and then they were fed into this machine to count, with auditing. But you’re right. That’s what people were talking about. Why can’t you just do it from your home computer and have no backup, right? Schoeller: Right. And that was one of the things I actually had to disagree when that viewpoint was put forth, particularly in one city that I remember. And even after I became elected, I went to a conference of other elected officials, and there was a group of speakers, and they all were talking about this, and there was actually one speaker— Sen. Klobuchar: Like voting from Facebook. Schoeller: Correct. Sen. Klobuchar: Just kidding... Schoeller: But they actually disagreed, and I went up, and I think I was the only election official that day—this was prior to 2016—that didn’t think that it was a good idea. But I think we have evidence now from 2016 that clearly—that’s a convenience that we just can’t afford. 1:35:05 Noah Praetz: We’ve got a piece of paper that every voter looked at. Senator Amy Klobuchar: Mm-hmm. Praetz: So worst-case scenario, a Sony-type attack with full meltdown of all systems, we can recreate an election that’s trusted and true. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, June 12, 2018. Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center 9:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. 39:40 Senator Mike Lee (UT): First, let’s talk a little bit about the integrity of our election infrastructure. We’ll start with you, Mr. Masterson. Were there any known breaches of our election infrastructure in the 2016 election? Matthew Masterson: Thank you, Senator. Yes, there was some publicly discussed known breaches of election infrastructure specifically involving voter-registration databases. Sen. Lee: Are there any confirmed instances of votes being changed from one candidate to another? Masterson: There are no confirmed instances of that. Sen. Lee: And were any individual voting machines hacked? Masterson: No, not that I know of. 42:55 ** Senator Mike Lee**: One approach to some of this, to the threat, the possibility of election infrastructure or voting machines being hacked from the outside is to go low-tech. Some states have gravitated toward that. For example, some states have started making moves back toward paper ballots so that they can’t be hacked. Is this something that’s helpful? Is it something that’s necessary that you think more states ought to consider? Matthew Masterson: Yeah. Senator, the auditability and having an auditable voting system, in this case, auditable paper records, is critical to the security of the systems. In those states that have moved in that direction have implemented means by which to audit the vote in order to give confidence to the public on the results of the election. In those states that have non-paper systems have indicated a desire—for instance, Pennsylvania—to more to auditable systems. And so at this point, resources are necessary to help them move that direction. Sen. Lee: By that, you mean either a paper-ballot system or a system that simultaneously creates a paper trail. Masterson: An auditable paper record. Correct, sir. 1:22:08 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Will you talk a bit about what you have seen in terms of the risk assessments you’ve been doing around the country? I believe 14 states have been completed. Is that correct, 14? Matthew Masterson: I believe it’s 17 states have been completed— Sen. Harris: Right. Masterson: —thus far, as well as 10 localities. Sen. Harris: And what generally have you seen as being the vulnerabilities— Masterson: Sure. Sen. Harris: —in those assessments? Masterson: Thank you, Senator. Generally speaking, within the election’s infrastructure sector, we’re seeing the same typical vulnerabilities you’d see across IT systems, so managing software updates, outdated equipment or hardware, as well as general upgrades that need to take place as far as what configuration management within systems to limit the damage that could be done if something were to take place. And so— Sen. Harris: Resilience. Masterson: What’s that? Sen. Harris: Their resilience. Masterson: Yeah, their resilience. Sen. Harris: Mm-hmm. Masterson: Exactly. Thank you, Senator. And so this sector is no different in what we see in the work we’re doing with them. 2:15:00 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): But what I want to talk about in my time is the problem of shell corporations, because for all of the emphasis that the witnesses have put on policing and prosecuting foreign influence in our elections, you can neither police or prosecute what you cannot find. And at the moment, we have both a shell-corporation problem, which was emphasized by Mark Zuckerberg in his testimony when he said their political advertisement-authentication program would only go to the first shell corporation and not seek any information about who was actually behind it. I don’t think Putin is stupid enough to call it Boris and Natasha, LLC. It’s going to sound more like Americans for Puppies and Peace and Prosperity. But it’s a front group, and it’s got Putin or whomever else behind it, and until we can know that, we cannot enforce effectively, period, end of story. Similarly, when our election system has these colossal channels for dark money, anonymized funding, if you can’t find out what special interest is behind anonymous money, you can’t find out if there’s a foreign interest behind that money. Darkness is darkness is darkness, and it hides malign activity, both foreign and domestic. And I’d like to ask each of you to comment on that. We’re concerned about trolling. Obviously, that’s facilitated by shell corporations. You talked about general propaganda campaigns. Obviously, facilitated by shell corporations. Campaign finance laws, you’ve called out for a need for effective disclosure. You can’t have effective disclosure if the only thing you’re disclosing is a front corporation and you don’t know who’s really behind it. So, if I could ask each of you three on that, then that’ll be the end of my time. Kenneth Wainstein: Sure, I’ll go first, Senator Whitehouse. And thank you for kind words, and good to work with you again. Always is. Sen. Whitehouse: We were good adversaries. Wainstein: We were. Adversaries who were working for the same goal. Sen. Whitehouse: Yes. Wainstein: Look, as a prosecutor, former prosecutor, looking at this issue, of course you want to know more about the corporations than less. There are obviously First Amendment issues and other concerns out there in the election context, but absolutely, there’s no way to sort of resist your logic, which is we’ve seen the use of corporations in a variety of contexts, whether it’s money laundering or otherwise, but we’ve seen here in the election interference and disinformation context, and a lot of that— Sen. Whitehouse: In fact, they’re widely used in the criminal context for money-laundering purposes and to hide the proceeds of criminal activities, correct? Wainstein: Absolutely. Sen. Whitehouse: So to the extent that what Putin is running is essentially a criminal enterprise of himself and his oligarchs. Why would they not look to what criminal enterprises do as a model? Wainstein: Yeah, it’s meat-and-potatoes criminal conduct. Sen. Whitehouse: Yeah. Wainstein: No question. And all intended to hide the fact of the source of this malign activity. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, C-SPAN, February 13, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Butler - Co-Founder and Managing Director, Cyber Strategies LLC Heather Conley - Director of the Europe Program Center for Strategic and International Studies Former Dep. Asst. Sec. of State for EU & Eurasian Affairs in GWB admin, 2001-2005 Richard Harknett - Professor of Political Science and Head of Political Science Department, University of Cincinnati Michael Sulmeyer - Director, Cyber Security Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University 7:15 Senator Ben Nelson: First, the department has cyber forces designed and trained to thwart attacks on our country through cyberspace, and that’s why we created the Cyber Command’s National Mission Teams. A member of this subcommittee, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Shaheen, we all wrote the secretary of defense last week that they, the department, ought to be assigned to identify Russian operators responsible for the hacking, stealing information, planting misinformation, and spreading it through all the botnets and fake accounts on social media. They ought to do that. That’s—the Cyber Command knows who that is. And then, we ought to use our cyber forces to disrupt this activity. We aren’t. We should also be informing the social-media companies of Russia’s fake accounts and other activities that violate those companies’ terms of service so that they can be shut down. 18:20 Heather Conley: You asked us what role DOD could play to protect the U.S. elections, and I think, simply, DOD working with Congress has got to demand a hold of government strategy to fight against this enduring disinformation and influence operation. We don’t have a national strategy. Unfortunately, modernizing our nuclear forces will not stop a Russian influence operation. That’s where we are missing a grave threat that exists in the American people’s palm of their hand and on their computer screens. 19:05 Heather Conley: As one of the most trusted institutions in the United States, the Department of Defense must leverage that trust with the American people to mitigate Russian influence. Simply put, the Department of Defense has to model the bipartisan and fact-based action, behavior, and awareness that will help reduce societal division. This is about leadership, it’s about protecting the United States, and as far as I can see, that is in the Department of Defense job description. Hearing: , House Oversight Subcommittee and Government Reform Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, C-SPAN, November 29, 2017. Witnesses: Christopher Krebs - Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary National Protection & Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security Tom Schedler - Secretary of State of Louisiana Edgardo Cortes - Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Matthew Blaze - Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania 4:24 Representative Robin Kelly (IL): In September of this year, DHS notified 21 states that hackers affiliated with the Russian government breached or attempted to breach their election infrastructure. In my home state of Illinois, the hackers illegally downloaded the personal information of 90,000 voters and attempted to change and delete data. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful. 5:05 Representative Robin Kelly (IL): Earlier this year, researchers at the DEF CON conference successfully hacked five different direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DREs, in a day. The first vulnerabilities were discovered in just 90 minutes. Even voting machines not connected to the Internet still contained physical vulnerabilities like USB ports that can be used to upload malware. Alarmingly, many DREs lack the ability to allow experts to determine that they have been hacked. Despite these flaws, DREs are still commonly used. In 2016, 42 states used them. They were more than a decade old, with some running outdate software that is no longer supported by the manufacturer. 20:30 Tom Schedler: In terms of voting-machine security, remember that with the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, states were required to purchase at least one piece of accessible voting equipment for each polling place. 23:55 Edgardo Cortes: Virginia has twice has been put in the unfortunate position of having to decertify voting equipment and transition to new equipment in a condensed timeframe, based on security concerns of previously used DREs. These steps outlined in detail in my written testimony were not taken lightly. They place a financial and administrative stress on the electoral system. They were, however, essential to maintain the public’s trust and the integrity of Virginia elections. The November 2017 general election was effectively administered without any reported voting-equipment issues. Thanks to the ongoing partnership between the state, our hardworking local election officials, and our dedicated voting-equipment vendors, the transition to paper-based voting systems on a truncated time line was incredibly successful and significantly increased the security of the election. 25:45 Edgardo Cortes: To ensure the use of secure voting equipment in the future, Congress should require federal certification of all voting systems used in federal elections. This is currently a voluntary process. Federal certification should also be required for electronic poll books, which currently are not subject to any federal guidelines. 28:20 Matthew Blaze: Virtually every aspect of our election process, from voter registration to ballot creation to casting ballots and then to counting and reporting election results, is today controlled in some way by software. And unfortunately, software is notoriously difficult to secure, especially in large-scale systems such as those used in voting. And the software used in elections is really no exception to this. It’s difficult to overstate how vulnerable our voting infrastructure that’s in use in many states today is, particularly to compromise by a determined and well-funded adversary. For example, in 2007 our teams discovered exploitable vulnerabilities in virtually every voting-system component that we examined, including backend election-management software as well as particularly DRE voting terminals themselves. At this year’s DEF CON event, we saw that many of the weaknesses discovered in 2007, and known since then, not only are still present in these systems but can be exploited quickly and easily by non-specialists who lack access to proprietary information such as source code. 38:40 Matthew Blaze: The design of DRE systems makes their security dependent not just on the software in the systems but the hardware’s ability to run that software correctly and to protect against malicious software being loaded. So an unfortunate property of the design of DRE systems is that we’ve basically given them the hardest possible security task. Any flaw in a DRE machine’s software or hardware can become an avenue of attack that potentially can be exploited. And this is a very difficult thing to protect. Representative Gary Palmer: Do we need to go to, even if we have some electronic components to back it up with paper ballots because your fallback position is always to open the machine and count the ballots? Blaze: That’s right. So, precinct-counted optical-scan systems also depend on software, but they have the particular safeguard, but there is a paper artifact of the voter’s true vote that can be used to determine the true election results. DRE, paperless DRE systems don’t have that property, and so we’re completely at the mercy of the software and hardware. 47:00 Christopher Krebs: When you characterize these things as attacks, I think that is perhaps overstating what may have happened in the 21 states, as was mentioned, over the course of the summer. The majority of the activity was simple scanning. Scanning happens all the time. It’s happening right now to a number of probably your websites. Scanning is a regular activity across the web. I would not characterize that as an attack. It’s a preparatory step. 58:15 Matthew Blaze: There is no fully reliable way to audit these kinds of systems. We may get lucky and detect some forensic evidence, but ultimately the design of these systems precludes our ability to do a conclusive audit of the voter’s true intent. That’s why paperless systems really need to be phased out in favor of things like optical-scan paper ballots that are counted at the precinct but backed by an artifact of the voter’s true intent. 1:02:42 Tom Schedler: The system that we’re looking at, we’re not out for bid yet, would be one that would produce, even though you would vote on an electronic machine, it would produce an actual paper ballot that you could hold in your hand—Representative Paul Mitchell (MI): My concern with that— Schedler: —and then cast ballot only with that point when you put it into a secure box. Rep. Mitchell: My concern with that, and Dr. Blaze makes the point, is that if you produce a paper result after you put something into the machine, if in fact the machine is tampered with, you could in fact end up with just confirming the tampered information. Schedler: Yes, sir. Speech: , Council on Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015. 12:35 Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Hearing: , House Administration Committee, C-SPAN, September 28, 2006. Witnesses: Edward Felton - Computer Science Professor at Princeton University Keith Cunningham - Board of Elections Director of Allen County, Ohio Barbara Simons - Association for Computer Machinery, Public Policy Committee Co-Chair 19:54 Edward Felten: Two weeks ago my colleagues, Ari Feldman and Alex Halderman, and I released a detailed security analysis of this machine, the Diebold AccuVote-TS, which is used in Maryland, Georgia, and elsewhere. My written testimony summarizes the findings of our study. One main finding is that the machines are susceptible to computer viruses that spread from machine to machine and silently transfer votes from one candidate to another. Such a virus requires moderate computer-programming skills to construct. Launching it requires access to a single voting machine for as little as one minute. 1:45:23 Keith Cunningham: Can they be improved? Absolutely, and I think throughout my comments I was very definite to say that these machines, as they currently sit, are not reliable. My question back to you, though, in that regard is, who’s going to pay to fix it, because one of the problems we have right now is in the last 24 months every election jurisdiction in this country has spent the $3 billion we spoke about earlier on new election equipment, and that’s what’s in place. So without somebody stepping forward to fund that enterprise, I don’t know how we’re going to improve them ourselves. 1:51:00 Barbara Simons: I wanted to remind the panelists of what happened in Carteret County, North Carolina, in, I believe it was, ’04, where paperless DREs were used and over 4,000 votes were lost. I mean, there's this concern about being able to reprint paper ballots or paper VVPATs. When you lose votes in a DRE, which has no paper, there is nothing you can do, and in fact, there was an election for—the statewide election—for agricultural commissioner, where the separation between the two candidates was such that the results could have been reversed by those missing votes. And it went to court, it went to two different courts, where they first tried to hold a recount just for the county itself. That was thrown out. Then it went for a statewide recount, and that was thrown out because we had no laws to deal with what happens when DREs fail. And finally, there were a number of people who submitted subpoenas or petitions say they had voted for one of the candidates, and based on those submissions, it looked like the judge was going to declare that candidate the winner, and so that was how the election was decided. This is not a way to hold elections in this country. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD177: Immigrant Family Separations

8 juli 2018 | 142 min

A new policy change by the Trump administration on May 7th has resulted in thousands of children being separated from their want-to-be-immigrant parents who crossed the U.S. southern border in the wrong location. In this episode, hear from officials in every branch of government involved to learn why this is happening, why it's proving to be so difficult to return the children to their parents, and what we can do to help this situation. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Letter to Representative/Senators . You are welcome to use this as you wish! Additional Reading Report: by Tanya Ballard Brown, NPR, June 29, 2018. Article: by Devlin Barrett, Mike DeBonis, Nick Miroff and Isaac Stanley-Becker, The Washington Post, June 27, 2018. Article: by Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept, June 26, 2018. Article: , The Washington Post, June 25, 2018. Article: by Maria Sacchetti, Kevin Sieff and Marc Fisher, The Washington Post, June 24, 2018. Article: , The Washington Post, June 23, 2018. Article: by Franco Ordonez and Anita Kumar, McClatchy, Jue 21, 2018. Report: by Michael Bisecker, Jake Pearson and Garance Burke, AP News, June 21, 2018. Report: by Graham Kates, CBS News, June 20, 2018. Report: by Andy Uhler and David Brancaccio, Marketplace, June 20, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, The Nation, June 20, 2018. Article: by Shaun King, The Intercept, June 20, 2018. Report: by Richard Gonzales, NPR, June 20, 2018. Report: by Colin Dwyer, NPR, June 19, 2018. Article: by Conrad Wilson, OPB, June 19, 2018. Report: by Amrit Cheng, ACLU, June 19, 2018. Article: by Ryan Devereaux, The Intercept, June 19, 2018. Article: by Franco Ordonez and Anita Kumar, McClatchy, June 19, 2018. Article: by Jonathan Blitzer, The New Yorker, June 18, 2018. Report: by Nick Cumming-Bruce, The New York Times, June 18, 2018. Article: by Nick Cumming-Bruce, The New York Times, June 5, 2018. Article: by Curt Prendergast and Perla Trevizo, Arizona Daily Star, May 28, 2018. Statement: , HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan, HHS, May 28, 2018. Report: by TYT Investigates, TYT Network, May 28, 2018. Testimony: , U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 22, 2018. Report: , National Immigrant Justice Center, May 17, 2018. Article: by Josef Federman, The Seattle Times, May 15, 2018. News Report: , Department of Justice, May 7, 2018. Statement: , April 26, 2018. Article: by Caitlin Dickerson, The New York Times, April 20, 2018. Article: by Lauren-Brooke "L.B" Eisen, Brennan Center for Justice, January 15, 2018. Article: by Amy Brittain and Drew Harwell, The Washington Post, October 25, 2017. Report: by Merrit Kennedy, NPR, June 6, 2017. Article: by Alice Speri, The Intercept, November 28, 2016. Article: by Sandra Dibble, San Diego Union Tribune, July 12, 2014. Article: by Carl Hulse, The New York Times, July 7, 2014. Resources Agency Details: GovTrack: GovTrack: Human Rights First: Publication: Snopes.com: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Finance Committee, C-SPAN, June 26, 2018. Witness: - Alex Azar - Health and Human Services Secretary 27:50 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): How many kids who were in your custody because of the zero-tolerance policy have been reunified with a parent or a relative? Alex Azar: So, I believe we have had a high of over 2,300 children that were separated from their parents as a result of the enforcement policy. We now have 2,047. Sen. Wyden: How many have been reunified? Azar: So, they would be unified with either parents or other relatives under our policy, so, of course if the parent remains in detention, unfortunately under rules that are set by Congress and the courts, they can’t be reunified while they’re in detention. Sen. Wyden: So is the answer zero? I mean, you have— Azar: No, no. No, we’ve had hundreds of children who had been separated who are now with—for instance, if there was a parent— Sen. Wyden: I want an— Azar: —parent who’s here in the country, they’d be with that parent. Sen. Wyden: I want to know about the children in your department’s custody. Azar: Yeah. Sen. Wyden: How many of them have been reunified? Azar: Well, that’s exactly what I’m saying. They had been placed with a parent or other relative who’s— Sen. Wyden: How many? Azar: —here in the United States. Sen. Wyden: How many? Azar: Several hundred. Sen. Wyden: Of the 2— Azar: Of the 2,300-plus that— Sen. Wyden: Okay. Azar: —came into our care. Sen. Wyden: How many— Azar: Probably of 2,047. 49:20 Senator Ben Nelson (FL): So, what is the plan to reunite 2,300 children? Alex Azar: Absolutely. So, the first thing we need to do is, for any of the parents, we have to confirm parentage. So that’s part of the process. With any child in our care, we have to ensure—there are traffickers; there are smugglers; there’re, frankly, just some bad people occasionally—we have to ensure that the parentage is confirmed. We have to vet those parents to ensure there’s no criminality or violent history on them. That’s part of the regular process for any placement with an individual. At that point, they’ll be ready to be reconnected to their parents. This is where our very broken immigration laws come into play. We’re not allowed to have a child be with the parent who is in custody of the Department of Homeland Security for more than 20 days, and so until we can get Congress to change that law to—the forcible separation there of the family units—we’ll hold them or place them with another family relative in the United States. But we are working to get all these kids ready to be placed back with their parents, get that all cleared up, as soon as—if Congress passes a change or if those parents complete their immigration proceedings, we can then reunify. 1:11:52 Alex Azar: If Congress doesn’t change the 20-day limit on family unification, then it depends on—the process for any individual parent going through their immigration proceedings, as long as they’re in detention, they can’t be together for more than 20 days—absurdly, but it is the case. 2:03:31 Senator Ron Wyden (OR): You told me a little bit ago that the Department has 2,047 kids in its custody, so— Alex Azar: That are separated. We’ve got about 12,000 unaccompanied minors in our program. Hearing: , C-SPAN, June 19, 2018. Witnesses: Lee Francis Cissna - Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security 17:17 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): Citizenship should not be for sale like a commodity on the stock exchange. There are millions—in fact, 4 million—of individuals who are waiting in line to immigrate lawfully to the United States. They have paid their required fees, they are in line, they wait patiently for a day that a visa becomes available, so they can be reunited with their families here in this country. However, because they don’t have a half a million dollars to buy their way in, they will continue to wait, some as long as 24 years. Yet, under the EB-5 system, the wealthy can cut to the front of the line. 49:45 Lee Francis Cissna: I did not play any role in deciding whether there was going to be a zero-tolerance initiative. What I recommended was, since there is one, what we need to do is decide which cases to refer in fulfillment of the zero-tolerance initiative directed by the attorney general, and I suggested that—I and the other officials who were involved in these discussions suggested that we refer all cases. Senator Dick Durbin: All cases. Cissna: Yes. Anybody who violates 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) will be prosecuted. Sen. Durbin: Which is—simply presenting themselves illegally at the border, without legal authorization at our border. Is that what you’re saying? Cissna: Between ports of entry, yes. Sen. Durbin: And you’re not just limiting this to those who may have committed some other crime, involved in some activity dangerous to the United States, but merely presenting themselves at these places is enough for you to believe this administration should treat them as criminals and remove their children. Cissna: I believe anyone crossing the border illegally who is apprehended doing so, whether they’re presenting themselves or not presenting themselves or trying to evade capture, if they are apprehended, they’re violating the law and should be prosecuted. Sen. Durbin: But if a person came to this border, seeking asylum— Cissna: Mm-hmm. Sen. Durbin: —is that person per se a criminal? Cissna: If they cross illegally, yes. Sen. Durbin: The premise was they presented themselves. Cissna: If they present themselves at the port of entry, no. 57:58 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): So there are two ways that 1325 violations can proceed: either as a civil matter, which is what was happening with the Obama administration, that did not require separating children from their parents; or you can go the criminal route, and this administration have chosen the criminal route. Isn’t that correct? Lee Francis Cissna: Well, I would have to defer to DOJ on the appropriate interpretation of 1325, but as I read it, it looks like a misdemeanor to me, and, therefore, would be a criminal— Sen. Hirono: Well, I’m reading the statute right here, and it says that it can be considered as a civil penalty’s provision; under civil, not criminal. That’s what the plain meaning of that section says to me that I’m reading right now. So, this administration has chosen to follow the criminal route, and that is the excuse, or that is the rationale, being given for why children have to be separated at the border. Now, you did not have to go that route, and in fact, from your testimony, you sound really proud that this administration has a zero-tolerance policy that is resulting in children being separated from their parents. Am I reading you wrong? You think that this is a perfectly—humane route to go to implement Section 1325? Cissna: It’s the law. I’m proud of it, yeah. Sen. Hirono: No, the law, this law allows for a civil process, and you are attributing _____(01:27). Cissna: I’m not sure that interpretation is correct, and I would, again, defer to DOJ for the final answer. 1:10:30 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: So, asylum seekers. They’re often refugees, correct? Lee Francis Cissna: Asylum seekers fall into the same definition of refugee at 101(a) (42), yeah. Sen. Whitehouse: Yep. And they often have very little in the way of resources, they’re often frightened, correct? Cissna: Yes. Sen. Whitehouse: Very few have legal degrees or are familiar with the United States’ immigration law, correct? Cissna: Yes. Sen. Whitehouse: And so if you’re a lost and frightened refugee and you see the U.S. border and you think, ah, this is my chance to get across to safety—which has long been something that our country’s been associated with—there could be a perfectly innocent reason for crossing the border in that location. And in that circumstance, would it not be perfectly reasonable for immigration officials who intercept them to say, “Ah, you seem to be a legitimate asylum seeker; you’re just in the wrong place. We’ll take you to the port of entry, and you can join the other asylum seekers at the port of entry”? But to arrest them and separate them from their children is a different choice, correct? Cissna: Well, I think if the person is already at that point where they’re apprehended and making their asylum case known, they’ve already crossed into the country illegally. If they’ve already crossed the border and made their asylum claim, they’ve already violated the law. They violated 1325. They’re here illegally. Sen. Whitehouse: Because they crossed in the wrong place. Cissna: Correct. Sen. Whitehouse: And they may not know that it’s illegal to cross in the wrong place, correct? They may simply be coming here because they’re poor and frightened and seeking safety, and for a long time, that’s what the United States has been a symbol of, has it not? Cissna: I cannot get into the minds of the people that are crossing the border illegally, but it seems to be— Sen. Whitehouse: But it is a clear possibility that there could be an innocent explanation for crossing the border as an asylum seeker at a place other than an established port of entry. Cissna: There might be. *Sen. Whitehouse: Okay. There you go. Cissna: Maybe. 1:36:13 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Do you think the administration would support repeal of Flores? Lee Francis Cissna: That is indeed one of the things that Secretary Nielsen spoke about yesterday, repeal Flores, but also you need to give ICE enough funds to be able to hold the family units once you’ve repealed Flores. Briefing: , Immigration Official on Border Security and Migrant Family Separation, C-SPAN, June 18, 2018. Hearing: , House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, C-SPAN, May 22, 2018. Witnesses: Ronald Vitiello - Acting Deputy Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection Lee Francis Cissna - Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services Thomas Homan - Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement 15:10 Ronald Vitiello: In accordance with the Department of Justice zero-tolerance policy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen has directed CBP to refer all illegal border crossers for criminal prosecution. CBP will enforce immigration laws set forth by Congress. No classes or categories of aliens are exempt from enforcement. 15:48 Ronald Vitiello: The effort and hours used to detain, process, care for, hold UACs and family units distracts our law-enforcement-officer deployments, shrinks our capability to control the border, and make the arrest of smugglers and drug traffickers and criminals much more difficult. 37:40 Ronald Vitiello: Between the ports, we’re now referring anybody that crosses the border illegally—so, Border Patrol’s referring 100% of the people that cross the border illegally—to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. At the ports, that’s not an illegal act if they come under the same conditions, but the verification of family relationships is essentially the same in both instances. Representative Filemon Vela (TX): So, with this new policy in place, at the point that you’re in a situation where you decide to separate the families, where do the minors go? Vitiello: The decision is to prosecute 100%. If that happens to be a family member, then HHS would then take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child. 39:58 Thomas Homan: As far as the detention capacity, we’re well aware of that. We’re working with U.S. marshals and DOJ on identifying available detention space. I got my staff working on that, along with the department and DOJ, so I think it’ll be addressed. We want to make sure we don’t get back to catch and release, so we’re identifying available beds throughout the country that we can use. As far as the question on HHS, under the Homeland Security Act 2002, we’re required, both the Border Patrol and ICE, to release unaccompanied children to HHS within 72 hours. So, we simply—once they identify within that 72 hours a bed someplace in the country, our job is to get that child to that bed. Then HHS, their responsibility is to reunite that child sometime with a parent and make sure that child gets released to a sponsor that’s being vetted. 41:33 Thomas Homan: If they show up at a port of entry made through asylum claims, they won’t be prosecuted, and they won’t be separated. The department has no policy just to separate families for a deterrence issue. I mean, they’re separating families for two reasons. Number one, they can’t prove the relationship—and we’ve had many cases where children had been trafficked by people that weren’t their parents, and we’re concerned about the child. The other issues are when they’re prosecuted, then they’re separated. 1:39:44 Representative Martha McSally (AZ): To summarize, some of those loopholes that we have been working together with you to close, the first is to raise the standard of the initial asylum interview that happens at the border, which is so low that nearly everybody can make it through. The second is to hold individuals as long as it takes for them to have due process in order to process their claim. The third is to make it inadmissible in our country if you are a serious criminal or gang or a gang member or a terrorist, which I cannot believe isn’t a part of the law, but we actually have to change that law. The fourth is to have a swift removal of you if you are denied in your claim. The fifth is to terminate your asylum, if you were to get it, if you return back to your country without any material change in the conditions there. Clearly, if you’re afraid for your life but you go back to visit, then something’s not right there, so your asylum should be considered for termination. The sixth is that there could be an expeditious return of unaccompanied minors to non-contiguous countries so that we can swiftly return them just like we can to Mexico. And the last is to increase the penalties for false asylum claims in order to deter and hold people accountable if they file for those. Is that a good summary of many of the loopholes we’re talking about today? Ronald Vitiello: Agree. Yes. Rep. McSally: Thank you. These all are in our bill, the Secure America’s Future Act. These are common-sense reforms that will keep our country safe and keep our communities safe, and I just want to encourage—don’t have any members left here—all members on both sides of the aisle, look at our bill, read our bill, study our bill. Hearing: , Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, Homeland Security Committee, May 22, 2018. Hearing: , C-SPAN, May 15, 2018. Witness: Kirstjen Nielsen - Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 14:00 Kirstjen Nielsen: If you try to enter our country without authorization, you’ve broken the law. The attorney general has declared that we will have zero tolerance for all illegal border crossings, and I stand by that. Anyone crossing the border illegally or filing a fraudulent asylum claim will be detained, referred for criminal prosecution, and removed from the United States, as appropriate. 36:45 Senator John Hoeven (ND): You know, when you do detain, apprehend, unaccompanied children coming across the border, as well as others, what are you doing to try to address the adjudication process, which is such a bottleneck in terms of trying to address this issue? You know, I know you’re short there. What can you do and what are you doing to try to adjudicate these individuals? Kirstjen Nielsen: So, as I continue to find out every day, our immigration process is very complex, as you well know, and involves many, many departments. What we’ve tried to do is look at it from an end-to-end approach. So in the example you just gave, there’s actually about three or four different processes that those groups would undertake. So in some cases we need additional immigration judges—DOJ’s working on that. In some cases we need additional processes and agreements with other parts of the interagency family—we’ve done that, for example, with HHS to make sure that we’re appropriately taking care of UACs in their custody. And then there’s other parts who, depending on if they’re referred for prosecution, we hand them over to the marshals—we want to make sure that that’s a process that works. And then in some cases we use alternates to detention. As you know, rather than detaining them, we will have check-ins; in some cases, ankle bracelets; but other ways to make sure that we have them detained while they’re awaiting their removal proceedings. Sen. Hoeven: Is that working? Nielsen: It does work. It does work. It’s a good combination. We do it on a case-by-case basis. There’s lots of criteria that we look at to determine when that’s appropriate and when that’s not appropriate. But, again, I think it’s some of the opening remarks perhaps the chairman made, if you look at UACs, 66% of those who receive final orders, receive the final orders purely because they never showed up for court. And we find that we’re only able to remove 3.5% of those who should be removed, who a judge has said has a final. So, if we can track them, it’s a much more efficient process while we wait for the final adjudication. 55:58 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): I also asked that I be provided with what training and procedures are being given to CBP officers as it relates to how they are instructed to carry out family separation. I’ve not received that information. Do you have that today? Kirstjen Nielsen: No. You have not asked me for it, so I do not have it, but— Sen. Harris: No, I asked you for it. Nielsen: —I’m happy to give it to you. Sen. Harris: Okay. So, again, by the end of next week, please. Nielsen: Can you explain a little more what you’re looking for? Sen. Harris: Sure. So, your agency will be separating children from their parents, and I would assume— Nielsen: No. What we’ll be doing is prosecuting parents who’ve broken the law, just as we do every day in the United States of America. Sen. Harris: I can appreciate that, but if that parent has a four-year-old child, what do you plan on doing with that child? Nielsen: The child, under law, goes to HHS for care and custody. Sen. Harris: They will be separated from their parent. Answer my question. Nielsen: Just like we do in the United States every day. Sen. Harris: So, they will be separated from their parent. And my question, then, is, when you are separating children from their parents, do you have a protocol in place about how that should be done? And are you training the people who will actually remove a child from their parent on how to do that in the least-traumatic way? I would hope you do train on how to do that. And so the question is, and the request has been, to give us the information about how you are training and what the protocols are for separating a child from their parent. Nielsen: I’m happy to provide you with the training information. Sen. Harris: Thank you. 57:25 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): And what steps are being taken, if you can tell me, to ensure that once separated, parent and child, that there will be an opportunity to at least sustain communication between the parent and their child? Kirstjen Nielsen: The children are at HHS, but I’m happy to work with HHS to get you an answer for that. 1:57:50 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Regarding detention conditions. Secretary, are you aware that multiple federal oversight bodies, such as the OIG and the GAO, have documented medical negligence of immigrants in the detention system, in particular that ICE has reported 170 deaths in their custody since 2003? Are you familiar with that? Kirstjen Nielsen: No, ma’am. Sen. Harris: Are you aware that they also found that pregnant women in particular receive insufficient medical attention while in custody, resulting in dehydration and even miscarriages? Nielsen: I do not believe that is a current assessment of our detention facilities. Sen. Harris: Okay. Can you please submit to this committee a current assessment? Nielsen: Yeah, I’m happy to. Sen. Harris: On that point? Nielsen: So, we provide neonatal care. We do pregnancy screening from ages 15 to 56. We provide outside specialists should you seek it. We do not detain any women past their third trimester. Once they enter their third trimester, we provide them separate housing. So, yes, we’re happy to detail all of the things we do to take good care of them. Sen. Harris: And did you submit that to the OIG in response to their findings? Nielsen: We have been in—yes, of course—working in conjunction with the OIG. I’m not sure exactly what the date is of the OIG report that you’re referencing, but I will look into it after this. Sen. Harris: Okay. And then also, between fiscal year ’12 and March of 2018, it’s our understanding—before I go on—the OIG report is from December of this past year, 2017. So it’s very recent. Five months ago? Also between FY ’12 and March 2018, ICE received, according to these reports, 1,448 allegations of sexual abuse in detention facilities, and only a small percent of these claims have been investigated by DHS, OIG. Are you familiar with that? Nielsen: I’m not familiar with that number, no. News Report: , CBS Local San Francisco, May 7, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be overwhelmed. People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need legality and integrity in the system. That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take up those cases. I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. Attorney General Jeff Sessions - In order to carry out these important new enforcement policies, I have sent 35 prosecutors to the Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to the border. These are supervisory judges that don’t have existing caseloads and will be able to function full time on moving these cases. That will be about a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling the asylum claims." Hearing: , U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, April 26, 2018. Witnesses: James McCament - Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Dept. of Homeland Security Steven Wagner - Acting Assistant Secratary for Administration for Children and Facilities at the Dept. of Health and Human Services Kathryn Larin - Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office 15:47 Senator Rob Portman (OH): In 2015, I learned the story of eight unaccompanied minors from Guatemala who crossed our southern border. A ring of human traffickers had lured them to the United States. They’d actually gone to Guatemala and told their parents that they would provide them education in America and to pay for the children’s smuggling debt. The parents actually gave the traffickers the deeds to their homes. And the traffickers retained those until the children could work off that debt, because they weren’t interested in giving them education, it turned out; they were interested in trafficking them. When the children crossed our border, their status, as defined by federal immigration law, was that of an unaccompanied alien child, or a UAC, so you hear the term UAC used today. The Department of Homeland Security picked them up, and following protocol, transferred them to Department of Health and Human Services. HHS was then supposed to place these children with sponsors who would keep them safe until they could go through the appropriate immigration legal proceedings. That’s practice. That didn’t happen. What did happen is that HHS released these children back into the custody of those human traffickers without vetting them. Let me repeat. HHS actually placed these children back in the hands the traffickers. The traffickers then took them to an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where these children lived in squalid conditions and were forced to work 12 hours a day, six, seven days a week, for more than a year. The traffickers threatened the children and their families with physical harm and even death if the children didn’t perform these long hours. This subcommittee investigated. We found HHS didn’t do background checks on the sponsors. HHS didn’t respond to red flags that should have alerted them to problems with the sponsors. For example, HHS missed that a group of sponsors were collecting multiple UACs, not just one child but multiple children. HHS didn’t do anything when a social worker provided help for one of those children, or tried to at least, and the sponsor turned the social worker away. During the investigation, we held a hearing in January 2016—so this goes back a couple years—where HHS committed to do better, understanding that this was a major problem. 2016, of course that was during the Obama administration, so this has gone on through two administrations now. HHS committed to clarifying the Department of Homeland Security and HHS responsibilities for protecting these children. HHS and DHS entered into a three-page memorandum of agreement, which said that the agencies recognized they should ensure that these unaccompanied alien children weren’t abused or trafficked. The agreement said the agencies would enter into a detailed joint concept of operations—so an agreement that’d actually lay out their responsibilities—that would spell out what the agencies would do to fix the problems. HHS and DHS gave themselves a deadline of February 2017 to have this joint concept of operations pulled together. That seemed like plenty of time to do it, but it wasn’t done, and that was over a year ago, February 2017. It’s now April 2018. We don’t have that joint concept of operations—so-called JCO—and despite repeated questions from Senator Carper and from me as well as our staffs over the past year, we don’t have any answers about why we don’t have the joint concept of operations. In fact, at a recent meeting a DHS official asked our investigators why we even cared about a JCO, why. And let me be clear: we care about the JCO because we care that we have a plan in place to protect these kids when they are in government custody. We care because the Government Accountability Office has said that DHS has sent children to the wrong facility because of miscommunications with HHS, and because of other concerns. We care because the agencies themselves thought it was important enough to set a deadline for the JCO but then blew past that date. We care because these kids, regardless of immigration status, deserve to be properly treated, not abused or trafficked. We learned at 4 p.m. yesterday that 13 days ago there was an additional memorandum of agreement reached between the two agencies. We requested and finally received a copy of that new agreement at midnight last night. It’s not the JCO that we’ve been waiting for, but it is a more general statement of how information will be shared between the two agencies. Frankly, we had assumed this information was already being shared and maybe it was, and it’s positive that we have this additional memorandum—that’s great. It’s nice that this hearing motivated that to happen, but it’s not the JCO we’ve all been waiting for. 45:05 Kathryn Larin: In 2015, we reported that the interagency process to refer unaccompanied children from DHS to ORR shelters was inefficient and vulnerable to error. We recommended that DHS and HHS develop a joint collaborative process for the referral and placement of unaccompanied children. In response, the agencies recently developed a memorandum of agreement that provides a framework for coordinating responsibilities. However, it is still under review and has not yet been implemented. 1:27:34 Senator Heidi Heitkamp (ND): It’s HHS. This is not a new problem. We’ve been at this a long time. Where are these kids, why don’t we know where they are, and how come after months of investigation by this committee we don’t seem to be getting any better answers, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: The answer to your question depends on what sort of timeframe you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the 30 days after release to a sponsor that we have determined to be qualified to provide for the care and safety and wellbeing of the kid, I think in the vast majority, I think we’re getting pretty close to 100% of those cases we know where they are. When you’re talking about as time goes on, things change. Yes, kids run away. No, we do not have a capacity for tracking down runaway UACs who leave their sponsors. Sen. Heitkamp: What do you think would happen in the IV-E program—the IV-E program is a federally sponsored funding for foster care that the states access to pay for foster-care kids. That’s IV-E. In order to get that money, you have to be a responsible state and know. What would happen, do you think, with IV-E dollars in a state that said, you know, we know where they are. We turned them over to a foster parent. We didn’t do any—I mean, as we know, not a lot of home visits, not a lot of followup. And if they ran away, we don’t know. What do you think you guys would do with the IV-E program in a state that had that kind of response? Wagner: Senator, you’re constructing an additional legal responsibility, which, in our view, does not currently exist with the UAC program. Our legal responsibility is to place these children in suitable households. In the IV-E program— Sen. Heitkamp: And then forget about. Wagner: —it would be a crisis. And there is—every state has a child-protective service agency to deal with those situations. We don’t have that apparatus. Sen. Heitkamp: And so if they—and you have no intention of creating that apparatus. You have no intention of having a database—I do need to understand where you think your lines of jurisdiction are. So you have no intention of ever trying to solve the problem of, here we gave the kid to the guy who said he was her uncle. We gave them to the uncle, and we found that was okay. And now we told the state maybe, or we didn’t tell the state, and good luck to that 15-year-old who went to her uncle. Wagner: I don’t agree with your characterization of the decision-making process. However, you know, this is an expensive program. Our duty is to execute the will of Congress and the president, which we will do faithfully. Sen. Heitkamp: Well, I think our duty is— Wagner: If you tell us you want us to track down— Sen. Heitkamp: I think our duty is a little more humanitarian than that, but can you tell me that in every case you notify the state agency that you have placed a minor in the custody of a suitable sponsor? Wagner: No, Senator. Sen. Heitkamp: Yeah. Wagner: It’s not our procedure to place state— Sen. Heitkamp: But you’re telling me that the backdrop—you’re telling me that the backdrop, the protection for that kid now falls on the state, even though you don’t even give the state the courtesy of telling them where they are. 1:51:28 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Let me back up for a second if I could and talk about what I said at the outset which is this hearing is an opportunity for us to try to get more accountability in the system and to tighten up the loose ends, and we’ve heard so many today, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. And, of course, the focus has been on this joint concept of operations. Because of that, we’ve been working on this with you all for 26 months, over two years. And, again, you promised in your own memorandum of agreement that you would have that completed over a year ago, and still, as of today, it’s not completed. I appreciate that Mr. Wagner said that—and true, at midnight last night we received this additional memorandum of agreement, and I do think information sharing is a good thing, but what we’re looking for is what I thought you were looking for, which is an understanding of how this is actually going to operate and who’s accountable. Because we don’t know who’s responsible and accountable and what the plans are, it’s impossible for us to do our oversight and for us in the end of the day to be sure that this system is working properly for the kids but also for immigration system. So I would ask you today, it’s been 14 months since you promised it, do you have it with you today? Yes or no. Mr. McCament? James McCament: I do not have it with me, ______(01:11). Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner. Steven Wagner: No, sir. Sen. Portman: Okay. What’s your commitment to getting this done now? So we’re 26 months into it. We’ve over a year past your previous commitment. What’s your commitment you’re going to make to us today as to when this joint concept of operations agreement will be completed? Mr. McCament. McCament: Mr. Chairman, when—being apprised and learning about the significant amount of time, we will be ready as partnership with HHS. As soon as we look at, receive the draft back, we’ll work as expeditiously as possible. I know that that is not to the extent of a time line, but I will tell you that we are ready, and we want to partner actively. You are correct that the MOA is part of that commitment—it is not all. The JCO memorializes our procedures that we already do, but it does not have them collated in one place. Work as expeditiously as possible _____(02:07). Sen. Portman: You make it sound so simple, and you’re also pointing the finger at your colleague here, which has been our problem. McCament: _____(02:15) Sen. Portman: Mr. Wagner, give me a timeframe. Wagner: Sir, we have to incorporate the new MOA in the draft JCO. Honestly, we are months away, but I promise to work diligently to bring it to a conclusion. 1:57:15 Senator Rob Portman (OH): Okay, we learned this morning that about half, maybe up to 58%, of these kids who are being placed with sponsors don’t show up at the immigration hearings. I mean, they just aren’t showing up. So when a sponsor signs the sponsorship agreement, my understanding is they commit to getting these children to their court proceedings. Is that accurate, Mr. Wagner? Steven Wagner: That is accurate. And in addition, they go through the orientation on responsibilities of custodians. Sen. Portman: So, when a child does not show up, HHS has an agreement with the sponsor that has been violated, and HHS, my understanding, is not even notified if the child fails to show up to the proceedings. Is that accurate? Wagner: That is accurate, Senator. Sen. Portman: So you have an agreement with the sponsor. They have to provide this agreement with you, HHS. The child doesn’t show up, and you’re not even notified. So I would ask you, how could you possibly enforce the commitment that you have, the agreement that you have, with the sponsor if you don’t have that information? Wagner: I think you’re right. We have no mechanism for enforcing the agreement if they fail to show up for the hearing. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Hearing: , Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: James McHenry - Director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review 2:42 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Earlier administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have struggled with how to reduce the case backlogs in the immigration courts. And, unfortunately, Congress has never provided the full extent of immigration judges and support staff truly needed to eliminate the backlogs. As a result, backlogs continue to grow, from 129,000 cases in fiscal 1998 to a staggering 684,000 as of February 2018. 3:27 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Aliens in removal proceedings sometimes wait for years before they ever appear before an immigration judge. For example, as of February 2018 courts in Colorado have the longest time for cases sitting on their docket more than 1,000 days—almost three years. In my home state of Texas, the current wait is 884 days—almost two and a half years. 7:06 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights contains the Constitution’s due-process clause. Let me quote it. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This language about due process actually dates its lineage to the Magna Carta. Please note: the due-process clause extends these critical protections to a “person,” not to a citizen. And the Supreme Court has consistently held that its protection—due-process protection—extends to all persons in the United States. The Court said expressly in Plyler v. Doe, “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” 9:23 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Today, 334 immigration judges face 680,000 pending cases. This backlog has grown by 145,000 cases just since President Trump was sworn into office. 28:45 James McHenry: A typical immigration court proceeding has two stages, or two parts. The first is the determination of removability. The Department of Homeland Security brings charges and allegations that an alien has violated the immigration laws. The judge—the immigration judge—first has to determine whether that charge is sustained, and that will be based on the factual allegations that are brought, so the judge will make determinations on that. If there is a finding that the alien is removable, then the case proceeds to a second phase. If the judge finds the alien is not removable, then the case is terminated. At the second phase, the immigration judge gives the alien an opportunity to apply for any protection or relief from removal that he or she may be eligible for under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This will involve the setting of a separate hearing at which the respondent may present evidence, they may present witnesses, they have the right to cross-examine witnesses brought by the department, and they will bring up whatever factual bases there is for their claim of relief or protection. At the end of that hearing, the immigration judge will assess the evidence, will asses the testimony, will look at the law, and will render a decision. The judge may either grant the application, in which case the respondent will get to remain in the United States. The judge may deny the application but give the respondent an opportunity to voluntarily depart at their own expense and sometimes after paying a bond, or the immigration judge may order the alien removed. 41:50 Senator Mike Lee (UT): I believe you recently testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee that it would take about 700 immigration judges in order to be able to address the backlog and address the current case load. Is that correct? James McHenry: Yeah, last fall the president proposed adding additional immigration judges, up to a number of 700. If we can get 700 on board, especially with our performance measures, we could complete over 450,000 cases a year. That would eviscerate the backlog. Sen. Lee: So, 700 would do it. McHenry: Based on the current numbers, it would certainly go a very long way toward eliminating it, yes. Sen. Lee: How many do you have right now? McHenry: We have 334 on board. Currently, we’re authorized, based on the recent omnibus spending bill, for up to 484. Even getting to that number would allow us to begin completing more cases than new receipts that we have in. Sen. Lee: How long does that normally take? My understanding is that between 2011 and 2016 it was taking about two years to hire a typical immigration judge. Is that still the case? McHenry: No. We have reduced that average. The attorney general issued a new hiring process memo to streamline the process last April. In using that process, we’ve put out five advertisements since the end of June for up to 84 positions in total. The first of those advertisements closed at the end of June last year. We expect to bring on the first judges from that advertisement in May, which will be right at approximately 10 months, and we anticipate bringing on the rest of them in July, which will be right at one year. And we think we can get to a stage where we are bringing on judges in eight months, 10 months, 12 months—a year at the most. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD176: Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress

25 juni 2018 | 157 min

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest oil reserves, is a country that has been experimenting with a new so-called “socialist” economic model for twenty years. For this sin, two consecutive Venezuelan Presidents have been targeted for regime change by the architects of the “free market” World Trade System, an economic system they intend to be global. In this episode, learn the recent history of Venezuela and hear the highlights of a March 2017 Congressional hearing (which was not aired on television in the United States) during which strategies for a Venezuelan regime change were discussed, and then learn about the regime change steps that have been taken since that hearing which have unfolded exactly how the witnesses advised. Pat Grogan joins Jen for Thank Yous. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Report: by Luis Alonso Lugo, AP News, June 6, 2018. Article: , TeleSUR, June 6, 2018. Opinion: by Jose R. Cardenas, Foreign Policy, June 5, 2018. Report: , FAS, May 24, 2018. Article: by Marc Caputo, Potlitico, May 22, 2018. Article: by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, The New York Times, May 21, 2018. Opinion: by Marco Rubio, CNN, May 16, 2018. Article: by Nick Cunningham, Business Insider, May 12, 2018. Report: by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, April 25, 2018. Article: Exclusive: by Simon Shuster, Time, March 20, 2018. Article: by Max Greenwood, The Hill, February 1, 2018. Report: by Rebecca M. Nelson, Congressional Research Service, January 10, 2018. Article: by Scott Neuman, NPR, October 16, 2017. Report: , FAS, September 1, 2017. Article: by Colin Dwyer, NPR, August 18, 2017. Article: by Philip Rucker, The Washington Post, August 13, 2017. Report: The New York Times, August 12, 2017. Article: by Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, August 12, 2017. Article: by Jennifer L. McCoy, The Washington Post, August 1, 2017. Article: by Colin Dwyer, NPR, July 31, 2017. Report: , FAS, July 27, 2017. Article: , BBC News, July 22, 2017. Report: by Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, July 11, 2017. Article: , The Washington Post, June 10, 2017. Article: by Alexandra Ulmer and Deisy Buitrago, Reuters, June 4, 2017. Article: by Colin Dwyer, NPR, May 5, 2017. Report: by Hannah Dreier, Yahoo News, May 4, 2017. Article: by Jonathan Watts and Virginia Lopez, The Guardian, May 2, 2017. Article: by Andrew Cawthorne, Reuters, April 30, 2017. Article: by John Otis, NPR, April 8, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey and Patricia Torres, The New York Times, April 1, 2017. Article: by Jason Slotkin, NPR, April 1, 2017. Article: by Nicholas Casey and Patricia Torres, The New York Times, March 30, 2017. Article: by Richard Gonzelez, NPR, March 30, 2017. Article: by Jim Wyss, Miami Herald, March 30, 2017. Article: by Reuters Staff, CNBC, March 10, 2017. Report: , DW, January 5, 2017. Article: by Nina Lakhani, The Guardian, August 31, 2016. Article: by Ezra Kaplan, Time, March 31, 2016. Article: by Juan Cristobal Nagel, Caracas Chronicles, January 12, 2016. Article: , BBC News, January 7, 2016. Article: by Frank Mulder, Inter Press Service News Agency, January 4, 2016. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, December 30, 2015. Report: by Patricia Torres and William Neuman, The New York Times, December 23, 2015. Report: by Diego Ore, Reuters, December 23, 2015. Article: , Human Rights Watch, December 10, 2015. Article: by Associated Press, The Guardian, December 8, 2015. Article: by Sibylla Brodzinsky, The Guardian, December 5, 2015. Article: by Charles Davis and Andrew Fishman, Common Dreams, November 19, 2015. Article: , Telesur TV, November 18, 2015. Article: by Boris Munoz, The New Yorker, March 18, 2015. Article: by John G. Murphy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, October 17, 2014. Article: by Eva Golinger, Counter Punch, April 25, 2014. Article: by Yuleidys Hernandez Toledo, Venezuelan Analysis, December 7, 2012. Article: , Grupo Tortuga, September 2, 2006. Article: a by Juan Forero, The New York Times, December 3, 2004. Report: by Juan Forero, The New York Times, December 3, 2004. Article: by Joshua Kurlantzick, Mother Jones, November/December 2004. Article: , The Economist, January 2, 2003. Article: by Jarrett Murphy, CBS News, December 10, 2002. Article: by Marc Cooper, The Nation, September 11, 2002. Article: by David Corn, The Nation, July 18, 2002. Article: by Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, April 29, 2002. Article: by Ed Vulliamy, The Guardian, April 21, 2002. Article: by Alex Bellos, The Guardian, April 15, 2002. Resources Congressional Research Service: Venezuela: , Mark P. Sullivan, January 23, 2017. Congressional Research Service: , May 20, 2015. Global Affairs Canada: Government of Canada: House Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Transcript: , June 24, 2004. Human Development Report 2016: Library of Congress: Organization of American States: Organization of American States: Public Citizen Report: USAID Report: Venezuelan Constitution: WikiLeaks: WikiLeaks: , Public Library of Diplomacy, November 9, 2006. Visual References Data: , The Guardian, October 4, 2012 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, June 14, 2018. Video: , The Real News Network, June 9, 2018. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, June 7, 2018. Video: , The Washington Post, June 4, 2018. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: “In addition to suspension, I call on member states to apply additional pressure on the Maduro regime with financial sanctions and diplomatic isolation until such time as it takes the actions necessary to return genuine democracy and provide people desperately needed access to international humanitarian aid" Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, February 14, 2018. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, September 13, 2017. Empire Files: TeleSUR English, July 19, 2017. Hearing:, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee, July 19, 2017. 07:15 Senator Marco Rubio: I also know this, and I do not speak for the president, but I’ve certainly spoken to the president, and I will only reiterate what he has already said, and I’ve been saying this now for a number of days: it is my—I have 100% confidence that if democracy is destroyed once and for all in Venezuela on the 30th in terms of the Maduro regime, the president of the U.S. is prepared to act unilaterally in a significant and swift way. And that is not a threat; that is the reporting of the truth. 10:38 Senator Bob Menendez: Even as their president prevents international support for the basic humanitarian needs of its citizens—blocking an effort by the National Assembly to facilitate international systems—they are voting to demand fundamental freedoms. Despite the suffering of his people, and the international outcry, Maduro insists on clinging onto the shreds of a failed ideology his predecessor and a few colleagues in the region still champion. Empire Files: , TeleSUR English, July 3, 2017. Empire Files: , TeleSUR English, June 17, 2017. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, March 28, 2017. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March 2, 2017. 21:30 Shannon O’Neil: The United States can and should also delve into Venezuela’s recent financial transactions, and specifically, its use of U.S.-based Citgo assets to collateralize its loans. CFIUS should investigate bond purchases by the Russian state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, who may, in the case of default, actually gain majority control of this critical refinery infrastructure here in the United States. 21:53 Shannon O’Neil: Multilateral initiatives are perhaps more important and potentially more fruitful as a means to influence Venezuela. This will mean working behind the scenes to galvanize opposition and condemnation for the Maduro regime. This’ll be more effective than U.S. efforts alone as it will be much harder for the Venezuelan government to dismiss the criticisms and the actions of its South American neighbors as imperialist overreach. And such a coalition is much more possible today than in any time in the recent past, due both to the accelerating repression and the breaking of the last democratic norms in Venezuela, and due to the very different stances of South America’s recently elected leaders, particularly in Peru, in Brazil, and in Argentina. The OAS remains a venue and an instrument to focus these efforts. The U.S. should call on the organization to again invoke the Inter-American Charter to evaluate Venezuela’s democratic credentials and its compliance with them, and this could lead, potentially to sanctions and suspension of Venezuela from this multilateral body. 23:00 Shannon O’Neil: And then, finally, the United States should begin preparing for change. If the Maduro regime is forced out or it collapses, the country will likely face humanitarian, economic, and financial chaos. And there’re two particular things the United States can start preparing for. The first is a wave of refugees. This will hit Venezuela’s neighbors the hardest—Brazil, Colombia, Guyana, nearby Caribbean nations. It’s important to help them with money, with supplies, potentially with personnel, and to back international NGOs in multilateral efforts to ease the suffering of these people. The second aspect to prepare for is a restructuring of Venezuela’s finances and its economy. A new government will need to renegotiate 140 billion dollars’ worth of external debt, whether or not the government has already defaulted upon it or not. And this massive undertaking will likely require an IMF rescue package and the baking of the international community and creditors. The U.S. will be vital in facilitating this as well as in helping a new government take the tough economic policy choices to turn the economy around. These will include, freeing the exchange rate, reinducing market prices, creating sustainable policies for the poor, and rooting out corruption. And thought this is complicated, the faster it occurs, the faster Venezuela’s economy will grow again. 25:30 Senator Ben Cardin: We look at ways in which we can change the direction here, and it starts with the governance. When you have a corrupt government, it’s going to be very difficult to see international organizations willing to come in to help refinance their economy. Even though they have wealth, it’s going to be difficult to figure out how that takes place unless they have basic changes in the way their government’s doing business. And we don’t see any indication that that’s taking place. So, you’ve made a couple suggestions. One is we need to work with our regional partners, which I fully agree. So let’s start with OAS, which is the entire region, as to whether it’s realistic that the Democratic Charter provisions can in fact lead to change in Venezuela. Ultimately, it will require us to have the threat of at least two-thirds of the countries if we’re going to be able to invoke the Charter with some teeth. What is the likelihood that OAS could be effective as a real force in bringing about change by the Maduro government? Mr. Feierstein? Mark Feierstein: Well, thank you very much for that question, and actually, if I can hit on your two other points as well; first, with regard to humanitarian assistance. Under the Obama administration, the USAID in fact did put together a contingency plan to provide assistance if in fact, even when, the Venezuelan government is willing to receive it, and USAID has a warehouse in Miami that’s prepared to provide assistance. I know international organizations are prepared as well. There has been some dialog between the government and the Inter-American Development Bank with regard to economic reform, though, frankly at fairly lower levels, and there’s no indication at senior levels that they’re inclined at serious attempts at economic reform. With regard to the OAS, I think that we’re much better positioned now than we were a couple years ago, and that’s because of some changes in some key governments in the region—Argentina; Peru; Brazil; there was a reference to Ecuador, a potential change there as well. And I think that patience has clearly run out with Maduro. I think countries are more inclined now to take action. There has been hesitation to do so as long as the dialog was alive and long as the Vatican was engaged. One of the challenges has been with regard to the Caribbean countries, which receive significant petroleum assistance from Venezuela, and that has somewhat silenced them, and there’s been some divisions within the Caribbean. That said, I’m hopeful that in the coming months that as the situation deteriorates in Venezuela, and as that it becomes clear that the dialog cannot be successful unless there is more pressure. And I think there needs to be three forms of pressure: There needs to be domestic mobilization within Venezuela, in the form of protests. I think there needs to be additional sanctions applied by the United States to other countries. And I think there needs to be action within the OAS, including a threat of suspension of Venezuela from the organization if it does not comply with the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 41:50 Senator Bob Menendez: Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA, and its subsidiary, Citgo, which has energy infrastructure in the United States, are under extreme financial pressure and may not be able to pay their bills in the near future. Under a recent deal, 49.9% of Citgo was mortgaged to Rosneft, the Russian government-owned oil company run by Vladimir Putin’s crony Igor Sechin. It’s also possible that Rosneft acquired other PDVSA bonds on the open market that could bring their ownership potential to over 50%. If Citgo defaults on its debts, Rosneft, an entity currently under American sanctions because of Russia’s belligerent behavior, could come to own a majority stake in strategic U.S. energy infrastructure, including three refineries and several pipelines. Given the close ties between Rosneft and Putin, Putin’s interest in undermining the United States, and Putin’s willingness to use energy as a weapon, does this potential deal concern you should a sanctioned Russian company have control over critical U.S. energy infrastructure? I would hate to see Rosneft be the sign hanging over Fenway Park. 44:50 Senator Bob Menendez: They’re— Unknown Speaker: No, I didn’t take it that way. Sen. Menendez: —just to the administration, because I think we can chew and walk gum—I know that my dear colleague, Senator Young, had a comment for me last week. I wish he was here—we can chew and walk gum, you know, and walk at the same time, which means as we’re going through cabinet officials, doesn’t mean we couldn’t get nominations that this committee, on a bipartisan basis, is generally processed very quickly. 49:50 Senator Marco Rubio: On the USAID piece, there’s a reason why we’re not in there: they don’t let us. The Venezuelan government does not allow open aid because they deny that there’s an emergency. *51:00 Mark Feierstein: As I noted before, I think we are better positioned now than we were a couple years ago because of changes in certain governments in the region, as we talked about—Argentina, Peru, Brazil, and others. I believe that, again, in the coming months, I think that some of the—that there is an opportunity—there will be an opportunity to invoke the Charter to threaten the suspension of Venezuela from the organization. And, I guess—I noted what I think, you know, we need. We need three forms of pressure for the dialog to succeed. I agree with you: dialog has not succeeded. The government has used it to buy time, to defuse domestic protests, to keep the international community at bay. But if the opposition’s able to mobilize internally; if we’re able to apply additional sanctions, and ideally, multilateralize them; and if we’re able to mobilize countries in the OAS to invoke the Charter to threaten the suspension of Venezuela from the OAS; I think, then, there would be greater prospects for a positive outcome in Venezuela. 54:55 Senator Tom Udall: I didn’t vote in favor of increased sanctions against Venezuela (Ven-su-way-la). I thought then and I believe now they’re counterproductive and could lead to further entrenchment of the current Venezuelan (Ven-su-way-len) regime, and that’s exactly what happened. The Venezuelan (Ven-su-way-len) people, many who oppose the government, are suffering. They’re going without food, without medicine, without power, without the essentials. 55:40 Senator Tom Udall: Mr. Smilde, are you clear that taking a hardline approach to Venezuela (Ven-su-way-la) will likely lead to a Cubanization of our policies there? 56:11 Senator Tom Udall: As to Venezuela (Ven-su-way-la), can you outline what role you think the Foreign Relations Committee or others should take to encourage a multilateral effort to ensure that elections are held in 2018 and to prevent a Cubanization of policies in Venezuela (Ven-su-way-la)? 58:00 Senator Tom Udall: Dr. O’Neil, would you agree that in Venezuela (Ven-su-way-la) different factions now view the situation as a zero-sum game? 1:14:25 Shannon O’Neil: One thing that has in the past in Venezuela brought the opposition together is elections, right, is a mechanism that you’re pushing towards a particular goal. And so as we look forward for 2017, there’s a party-registration process that is about to begin, and there’s questions about who may or may not qualify there and if the National Electoral committee will actually play fair in that sense. That is something that you could rally together different groups if it’s seen unfair in terms of qualifications. And then we have pending elections that did not happen at the end of last year, regional elections that may or may not be put on the table. And so I think internally, a push for elections—because that is a constitutional mechanism for parties to participate in democracy—and perhaps outside as well, we can be pushing for these parts, even we know democracy is not existent there anymore, but can we push for elections, can we push, and that’s something, at least, to galvanize those that are not in power today. Video: , Youtube, February 15, 2016. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, C-SPAN, March 17, 2015. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN May 8, 2014. White House Daily Briefing: , C-Span, April 16, 2002. State Dept Daily Briefing: , C-SPAN, April 15, 2002. Community Suggestions Podcast: Documentary: Book: FB Thread: See more Community Suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD175: State of War

11 juni 2018 | 177 min

The State Department is known as the agency that solves conflicts with words but a closer look reveals that it’s much more connected to war than most of us think. By examining the State Department’s funding for 2018, discover the State Department’s role in regime changes past, current, and future. In this episode, you’ll also get an introduction to the National Endowment for Democracy, a scandalous organization with a noble sounding name. Mike Glaser joins Jen for the Thank You’s. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Article: by Jose R. Cardenas, Foreign Policy, June 5, 2018. Opinion: by Roger F. Noriega, Fox News, May 23, 2018. Opinion: by The Editorial Board, The New York Times, May 21, 2018. Report: by John Paul Rathbone, Financial Times, May 21, 2018. Article and Video: by Carol Morello, The Washington Post, May 21, 2018. Article: by Luc Cohen and Andreina Aponte, Reuters, May 20, 2018. Opinion: by Marco Rubio, CNN, May 16, 2018. Letter: , FCNL, May 14, 2018. Report: by Ahmed Feteha, Bloomberg, May 6, 2018. Opinion: by Andrew Miller, The Hill, April 23, 2018. Article: by Eliza Relman, Business Insider, April 12, 2018. Opinion: , The Guardian, April 2, 2018. Article: by Robin Wright, The New Yorker, March 23, 2018. Report: by Ellen Mitchell, The Hill, March 22, 2018. Report: by Emmie Martin, CNBC, March 12, 2018. Report: by Bessma Momani, Brookings, January 30, 2018. Article: , IMF, January 23, 2018. Report: , International Monetary Fund, January 22, 2018. Article: by John Bolton, WSJ, January 15, 2018. Article: by Tim Cook, The Journal, December 11, 2017. Interview: by Adrianne Owings, The Politic, November 20, 2017. Working Paper: by Edward N. Wolff, The National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2017. Article: by Nathaniel Meyersohn, CNN Money, October 20, 2017. Article: by Ahmed Aboulenein, Reuters, August 23, 2017. Article/Video: by The New York Times, August 12, 2017. Article: by Farah Najjar, Aljazeera, May 31, 2017. Video: , U.S. Department of State, April 1, 2017. Article: by Eric Alterman, The Nation, February 2, 2017. Report: by Alec Luhn, The Guardian, July 28, 2015. Article: . by Colby Itkowitz, The Washington Post, May 12, 2015. Report: by Ben Kamisar, The Hill, April 12, 2015. Article: by John R. Bolton, The New York Times, March 26, 2015. Article: by Josh Siegel, The Daily Signal, June 25, 2014. Report: by Saeed Kamali and Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, August 19, 2013. Article: by Abigail Hauslohner, William Booth, and Sharaf al-Hourani, The Washington Post, July 3, 2013. Report: by Matthew Mosk and Jeffrey H. Bimbaum, The Washington Post, May 23, 2008. Article: by Brendan Koerner, Slate, January 22, 2004. Article: e by Thierry Meyssan, Voltairenet, January 22, 2004. Article: by Ed Vulliamy, The Guardian, April 21, 2002. Article: by Paul Lewis, The New York Times, July 13, 1996. Resources Archive.org: Campaign Contributions: Congressional Research Service: Energy Report: Friends Committee on National Legislation: International Republican Institute: International Republican Institute: LinkedIn Profile: LinkedIn Profile: National Democratic Institute: National Democratic Institute: National Endowment for Democracy: National Endowment for Democracy: Paladin Capital Group Info: Publication: USAid: U.S. Department of State: U.S. Government Accountability Office: Website: Sound Clip Sources Testimony: , Foreign Affairs Committee, C-SPAN, May 23, 2018. 5:32 Chairman Ed Royce (CA): The National Endowment for Democracy in particular should be strongly supported. Let’s face it: democracy is on the ropes worldwide; supporting it is a moral and strategic good. NED is backing critical programming in Venezuela and Nigeria and worldwide. It is no time to cut this programming. 6:00 Chairman Ed Royce (CA): The administration has rightly provided lethal arms to Ukraine, which remains under siege by Russian proxies. 6:16 Chairman Ed Royce (CA): A far more severe threat is Moscow’s information war. This committee has heard that Moscow’s goal isn’t so much to make Western citizens think this or think that; Russia’s goal is to destroy all confidence in objective thought. By undermining fact-based discussions with lies, our enemies hope to gravely damage Western democracies. The State Department must aggressively counter disinformation through its global engagement center, other means, and with department officials speaking out for the truth. 18:05 Mike Pompeo: On Monday I unveiled a new direction for the president’s Iran strategy. We will apply unprecedented financial pressure; coordinate with our DOD colleagues on deterrents efforts; support the Iranian people, perhaps most importantly; and hold out the prospect for a new deal with Iran. It simply needs to change its behavior. 19:40 Mike Pompeo: This budget request seeks $2.2 billion to help stimulate American economic growth by expanding markets for U.S. investment and ensuring the partner countries can fully participate in the global economy. 19:55 Mike Pompeo: America’s message, a noble one, must be shared with the world at all times. Gentleman Royce, you mentioned the global engagement center. We will work with the 55-plus-million dollars available to cover both its original mission, counter extremism, plus countering state-sponsored disinformation campaigns. We will not tolerate Russian interference in our 2018 elections. Much work has been done; there’s more to do. Rest assured that we will take the appropriate countermeasures in response to the continued Russian efforts. 35:05 Mike Pompeo: First, with respect to Venezuela, we did this morning receive a formal notification that our charged affairs had been PNG’d. We will respond appropriately, certainly reciprocally, but perhaps more than that. Perhaps proportionately. We understand that there’s a second U.S. officer who will also be PNG’d. We’re well aware. We’re watching the Maduro regime continue to engage in destructive behavior for the Venezuelan people. 1:44:35 Paul Rep. Cook (CA): Foreign military sales. A number of the countries are concerned. Peru is— Mike Pompeo: Mm-hmm. Rep. Cook: —I think they’re putting in a plug for the C-130Js. Very, very interested. And so I obviously am very, very concerned. Before, in the past, we’re much more involved in that. And as I said, there’s a lot of countries, most notably China and Iran, that are involved in that. What can we do to increase foreign military sales in that region? Pompeo: I, for one, would advocate for working closely with them and encouraging them to purchase U.S. equipment that fit their country, that was the right tool set for them, for themselves and their security interests. I hope that we can, across the board, streamline the State Department’s process connected with foreign military sales. There’s work to do. Rep. Cook: And I brought up this subject before in regards to NATO. You know, Eastern Europe, they’re still reliant on the parts from Russia. Once you go with another country, you’re going to be dependent on that. So, I think we’ve got to look at that whole situation, or once they buy, they’re going to be buying there for the next five generations or something. Pompeo: Yes, sir. Rep. Cook: Thank you very much. I yield back. 1:54:17 Rep. Scott Perry (PA): And in Bosnia, I’m concerned that there’s an October election and there’s a problem with the constitution. The date and accords were never supposed to last 20 years. They have. But I’m concerned that we’re not headed in the right place there. And I just want to get your thoughts on that, if we’re going to wait to see what happens, if we’re going to take preemptive action. I would hate to see that thing burn down and then—with the United States having troops on the ground there to try and secure the peace, and also if we’re interested in pursuing putting some forces there, again, to thwart Russia, and if that’s a consideration. So, those two topics, sir. Mike Pompeo: So, let me start first with Bosnia. We’re working on the very issue you described. I can’t say a lot about it, but know that the State Department, others, Department of Defense are there. We understand the risk. We think the region’s very important. We know the—and this transitions to your second part of the question which is, we know the Russians are hard at work there destabilizing— Rep. Perry: As are the Turks, right? Pompeo: Yes. And so there are a handful, although admittedly not sufficiently sized levers currently being employed, and we’re working to develop a strategy that puts us in a better place. 1:55:35 Rep. Scott Perry (PA): Mr. Secretary, this is a picture—I’m sure you’re well aware—of an M1 tank manufactured right here in the United States, paid for by the citizens of the United States, with their taxes. That is a Hezbollah flag on it. I am concerned and have written letters regarding the Train and Equip Program in Iraq and the Shia Crescent and the land bridges they’re building across Iraq with the militias there again. Many of the Iranian people want freedom, they want peace, and the don’t agree with the regime that they’re working—living under. But I offered amendments in the NDAA to stop the funding and the Train and Equip Program. One was found in favor; one was not. So we leave it up to you. I want to make sure that you’re aware that this is happening, including militias like Kata’ib Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organization for killing American soldiers. And if the Congress is unwilling to stop it, I hope you will be willing to stop the funding and the Train and Equip Program in Iraq and funding the Iranian militias that are willing to kill Americans and Jews and everybody across the Crescent that disagrees with them. Mike Pompeo: I’ll say this: it is the case that when we perform Train and Equip functions from time to time, equipment ends up in the hands of the wrong people. It’s a risk inherent in those operations. The question becomes, is the value we’re getting from that training, those exercises, outweigh the risk that that happens? You should know that the U.S. government works diligently to put rules and processes in place to make that picture, or pictures like that, as infrequent as possible. Rep. Perry: I don’t think the Iraqis are complying. 2:03:45 Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL): In terms of what’s going on in Venezuela, there’s a pretty significant Cuban presence of military intelligence. Is that your estimation? Mike Pompeo: I’m sorry. Could you repeat the question? Rep. DeSantis: In terms of the situation in Venezuela, propping up the Maduro regime, is part of that the Cuban military and intelligence apparatus? Pompeo: In this setting I can say there are a great deal of Cuban influence that is working alongside the Maduro regime. Rep. DeSantis: And it’s not helpful to what America wants. Pompeo: It runs adverse to U.S. interests, directly adverse to U.S. interests. 2:05:42 Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL): The Iranian people, obviously, are not happy with this regime. I mean, this is a militant, Islamic regime that’s been really imposed on relatively pro-Western populous, educated middle class. We see the protests. The president has spoken out, I think correctly. What can we do to help, because it seems like the regime cracks down on the social networks, they don’t want there to be a free flow of information, but I think it’s certainly in our interests to empower people who view this regime as illegitimate and not representative of their ideals. Mike Pompeo: It’s long been U.S. deeply held position that we will do the things we can to ensure that peoples all around the world have their human rights, their political rights, their capacity to express themselves. We shouldn’t shy away from that with respect to Iran, either. There are a number of tools that we can use, some of which I’m now responsible for their implementation; others exist other places in government. We should bring them all to bear to allow the Iranian people to be governed by the leaders that they choose. 2:59:44 Rep. Ted Lieu (CA): I’d like to ask you now about Yemen. As you know, the war in Yemen is now the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. Over 22 million people are now at risk of starvation, 8 million don’t know where their next meal will be, and every 10 minutes a child dies of preventable causes. So the U.S. is involved in Yemen in two ways. One is we are striking terrorists. Now, I don’t have a problem with that. But the other way we’re involved is we are assisting the Saudi-led military coalition. And again, I don’t have a problem with assisting our allies, but I do have a problem when that coalition is killing large numbers of civilians through airstrikes that are nowhere near military targets. And as of last September, more than 5,000 civilians have been killed, the majority from these airstrikes. In 2016 the State Department, its lawyers, have wrote a memo saying that because we’re refueling these planes, the Saudi jets, and also providing them other assistance, that U.S. personnel could be considered a co-belligerent and liable for war crimes. I know you just came on as secretary of state. Wonder if you’ve had a chance yet to read that memo. Mike Pompeo: I have not. Rep. Lieu: At your convenience. Pompeo: But I will. I will review the memo. Rep. Lieu: Thank you. I appreciate that. And if you could also make a request to your state department to see if members of Congress could also review that memo in a classified setting as well, that’d be appreciated. Pompeo: Have you—You’ve not had a—I take it you’ve not had a chance to see it. Rep. Lieu: We have not. Pompeo: Yes, sir. Rep. Lieu: So if you could make that request, that’d be great. Pompeo: I will review that, absolutely. Rep. Lieu: Thank you. So, when this conflict first started, we had all these airstrikes from Saudi-led coalition, and what it turned out is that it’s not that they were trying to hit a Houthi vehicle that was moving and they missed and struck a bunch of civilians; what ended up happening is they intentionally struck those civilian targets. So they struck hospitals, weddings, schools, markets, and last year they struck a funeral, that killed hundreds of people, twice. So they hit this funeral, and the jets went around and hit it again a second time. Very precise. That’s why the Obama administration actually stopped a shipment of precision-guided munitions because they realized actually these jets are intending to strike their targets and they were civilians. It’s my understanding that the Trump administration is now going to go forward with that sale. Just wondering why do you think anything has changed in Yemen that would authorize this sale to go forward? Mike Pompeo: So, I’m cursorily familiar with the incidents you’re describing. There are a very rigid set of rules that are thought deeply about in every national security agency that I’ve been part of—at the CIA before, now at State Department—with respect to providing munitions to organizations that are intentionally engaging in civilian targeting. We have a complex set of rules and prohibitions. We would never do that. It is this administration’s judgment that providing the precision-guided munitions actually decreases the risk to civilians. And it’s for that reason we think this actually makes sense, certainly for our allies and partners but also for citizens that are engaged in ordinary activity inside of Yemen. And if I might, this administration’s also taken serious action to do our best to reduce the humanitarian crisis that is Yemen as well. We’ve not resolved it, but we’ve made real progress. Rep. Lieu: Thank you. News Interview: , Fox News, January 1, 2018. Video: , C-SPAN, January 20, 2004. Congress: , C-SPAN, January 3, 2012. 1:40:39* Senator Rand Paul (KY): I think many people would admit that the Iran agreement had some deficiencies. One of the largest deficiencies might have been that the $100 billion was released all at once instead of maybe gradually to help modulate behavior over a longer period of time. That being said, the $100 billion that was released was a great inducement to get Iran to sign the agreement. That was a carrot, and that carrot’s gone. They’ve gotten the good thing, and now we want compliance, and now we’re pulling out. And so the question is, what are the next inducements to get them to sign things, or will there not be? I think there’s a question with—there are two possibilities, basically, of what will happen. So you reintroduce the strongest sanctions ever. They either don’t work—that’s one possibility—because they’re unilateral, and some say unilateral sanctions won’t work. Let’s say they don’t work. That means Europe, China, and Russia continue to trade with them, and Iran says, “Well, they’re going to continue to trade with us. We’ll just keep abiding by the agreement.” They don’t develop any more nuclear weapons or technology towards that, but they don’t do anything else that you would like—ballistic missiles, less terrorism. So, really, basically, we don’t get what we want if the sanctions don’t work. Second possibility. Let’s say the sanctions do work. We have enough manipulation of money that flows through us from Europe. Europe does a lot of trade with us. Europe buckles. I think Russia and China still will trade with them, but let’s say Europe buckles. And let’s say it works, and it puts enough pressure on Iran, then there are two possibilities of what Iran does. The first possibility is they say, “Oh, Secretary Pompeo. We love Secretary Pompeo’s 12-point strategy, and we’re going to accept that.” I think that’s unlikely. The second possibility, if the sanctions work and they put enough pressure on them—Iran feels the pressure—is that they restart their nuclear centrifuge program. So those are two possibilities. But what I’d like to do is go through the 12 steps that you’d like Iran to do and sort of explore what these would mean if we thought about them in terms of bigger than Iran. So one of your first things is—and this came up during JCPOA, but nobody really could really get this done—you want Iran to reveal the military dimensions of its nuclear program. Well, let’s substitute Israel for Iran there. Does anybody think Israel’s going to reveal the military dimensions of their nuclear program? Well, you’ll say, “Well, they’re our friend.” Well, yeah, but from Iran’s perspective they see Israel as a rival and a regional rival. Let’s put Saudi Arabia in there. Well, Saudi Arabia revealed the military dimensions of its nuclear program. Well, some might say, “Mm, they don’t really have it.” But I’m guessing there are files over at the CIA that say, “Well, you know what? They have talked to people about purchasing it. Some say they have purchased nuclear technology.” I can guarantee we know that, and you probably can’t admit it, but let’s put Saudi Arabia in there. Are they willing to discuss anything they have done to develop nuclear weapons? So really what you’re asking for is something that they are never going to agree to. Okay? You can try to crip them. It’s sort of like unconditional surrender. You’re not getting that. Let’s move on. Proliferation of ballistic missiles. I don’t like them threatening surrounding countries or us with ballistic missiles. Nobody does. But they respond not just to us; they respond to Saudi Arabia. There’s a 1,000-year-old war over there. There’s a 1,000-year-old religious war over there, and there’s hostility between the two. So when we supply weapons and the Saudis buy ballistic missiles—the Saudis have a ballistic program—they respond to that. The Saudis and their allies, the Gulf sheikhdom, spend eight times more than Iran. So when you tell Iran, “Oh, well, you have to give up your ballistic-missile program,” but you don’t say anything to the Saudis, you think they’re ever going to sign that? They would have to be crippled and starving people in the streets for them ever to agree to give up their ballistic-missile program. Had we kept the Iran agreement with them and you said to the Iranians, “Well, we want less of an arms race over there. We’d like to have peace with Saudi Arabia. Could we get Saudi Arabia to the table, with Iran, to discuss either a freeze of ballistic missiles—” you know, when we went to Russia, we didn’t just succumb and say we’d give up our weapons. Neither did Russia. We did it in parity. We had an agreement. If you leave Saudi Arabia out of it and you leave Israel out of it and you look at Iran in isolation, that’s not the way they perceive it. So, don’t think they’re going to jump at your 12 notions here of what you’d like them to do. Mike Pompeo: Senator, may I make this one point? Paul: Go ahead. Pompeo: I think the example of Saudi Arabia’s a reasonable one. We have told the Saudis exactly what I asked from the Iranians. Paul: To talk about their nuclear program? Pompeo: They have said they want a peaceful nuclear-energy program, and we have told them we want a gold-standard, Section 123 agreement from them, which would not permit them to enrich. That is simply all I’ve asked of Iran as well. Paul: Do we have information that the Saudis have talked to actors in Pakistan and other places about purchasing nuclear technology? Pompeo: Sir, I can’t answer that here this morning. Paul: Which is to say we, in all likelihood, do have that information. And so the thing is it’s a one-way playing field. Unless we understand that there are two big players over there—really, three big players: you got Iran, you got Israel, and you got Saudi Arabia—we want Iran to do things we’re not willing to ask anybody else to do and that we would never do. So— Pompeo: Senator, I disagree with you. I think we ask most nations to do precisely what we’re asking Iran to do. Paul: Let’s move on to another one of your 12 points and the military support for the Houthi rebels. Well, once again, you’re asking them to end it, but you’re not asking the Saudis to end their bombardment of Yemen. I mean, if you look at the humanitarian disaster that is Yemen, it is squarely on the shoulders of the Saudis. And so we’re going to ask the Iranians to quit supplying—they, in all likelihood, are the ones supplying the missiles—and we get reports, and the Defense Department comes and says, “There’ve been 32 missiles strikes in Saudi Arabia.” Well, there’s been, like, 16,000 bombings of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Nobody even mentions that. We act as if it didn’t even happen. If we are so ignorant that there’re two sides to this war, we’re never getting anywhere. Iran’s not going to stop doing that, but they might if you sat them down with the Saudi Arabians, said, “This arms race doesn’t make sense,” and Saudi Arabia’s willing to sit down at the table. You know, is Saudi Arabia willing to stop, another one’s withdrawal all forces under Iran’s command throughout the entirety of Syria? There were dozens of groups in there, even ISIS, that were getting weapons from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In fact, one of the leaked emails from WikiLeaks was from Clinton to Podesta, saying, “My goodness. We’ve got to stop Saudi Arabia and Qatar from funding ISIS.” That’s a direct email. They were acknowledging they knew about it, and they were acknowledging it was a problem, but weapons were flowing in to all kinds of radicals in there. So if you want Iran to stop—and I mean, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are 10 times the problem, you know? The whole Syrian war has all of these radical jihadists. The people who attacked us came from Saudi Arabia. We ignore all that, and we lavish them with more bombs. So, really, until we acknowledge there are two sides to the war—or three sides to the war in the Middle East—you’re not going to get the agreement. I think it was naïve to pull out of the Iran agreement, and I think in the end, we’ll be worse off for it. United Nations Address: , June 18, 2006. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD174: Bank Lobbyist Act

28 maj 2018 | 130 min

The Bank Lobbyist Act was just signed into law and as the nickname suggests, it is a banker’s wet dream. In this episode, learn the details of this new law including the many favors to banks big and small - which undoubtedly make our entire financial system riskier - along with a few good provisions that can help you protect your identity and maybe even increase your credit score. Joe Briney joins Jen for the thank you’s. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send payments to: Send payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Recommended Reading by David Dayen Additional Reading Article: by Glen Fest, Asset Securitization Report, May 24, 2018. Report: by Tory Newmyer, The Washington Post, May 23, 2018. Article: by Andrew G. Simpson, Insurance Journal, May 23, 2018. Report: by Caroline Basile, Housing Wire, May 22, 2018. Report: by CUNA, CUInsight, May 22, 2018. Report: by JD Alois, Crowdfund Insider, May 22, 2018. Letter: by Vanita Gupta, President & CEO of The Leadership Conference, CivilRights.org, May 21, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, May 16, 2018. Opinion: by Mayra Rodreguez Valladares, The Hill, May 12, 2018. Report: by Yakob Peterseil and Cecile Gutscher, Yahoo Finance, May 3, 2018. Article: by David Borum, NASDAQ, May 1, 2018. Report: by Sridhar Natarajan, Sally Bakewell, and Katia Porzecanski, Bloomberg, April 30,2018. Article: by Peter Eavis, The New York Times, April 24, 2018. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, March 2, 2018. Article: by Noam Scheiber and Kenneth P. Vogel, The New York Times, February 25, 2018. Article: , CNBC, February 24, 2018. Report: by Rob Wile, Money, December 19, 2017. Report: , Republican Policy Committee, December 4, 2017. Brief: by Mary Tyler March, Construction Drive, July 7, 2017. Opinion: by James Murphy, Forbes, May 3, 2017. Article: by Mike Baker and Daniel Wagner, The Seattle Times, December 26, 2015. Article: by Mike Baker and Daniel Wagner, The Seattle Times, April 2, 2015. Article: by Jonathan Weisman, The New York Times, December 11, 2014. Article: by Erika Eichelberger, Mother Jones, December 10, 2014. Article: by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Princeton Scholar Publication, September 2014. Article: by Erika Eichelberger, Mother Jones, May 24, 2013. Report: by Eric Lipton and Ben Protess, The New York Times, May 23, 2013. Bill Outline : Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act ("The Bank Lobbyist Act") : IMPROVING CONSUMER ACCESS TO MORTGAGE CREDIT : Exempts banks with under $10 billion in assets from ability-to-pay documentation requirements for mortgages as long as the loans do not have interest-only or principal increasing features. The bank is also supposed to keep the loan in their portfolio but there is a loophole that allows the loan to be sold as long as the next bank keeps the loan in their portfolio. : Exempts banks from having do to appraisals of property located in rural areas for transactions under $400,000 : Exempts banks and credit unions from reporting data about credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, and loan-to-value ratios of their loans if the bank issues fewer than 500 loans per year, which includes 85% of all banks and credit unions. : Allows people selling manufactured homes to guide their customers towards getting loans from certain banks as long as they disclose to the customer in writing that they have a corporate affiliation with the bank and as long as they do not directly negotiate the loan terms. The home seller would be allowed to be paid for steering customers to the bank. : REGULATORY RELEIF AND PROTECTING CONSUMERS ACCESS TO CREDIT : Exempts banks with less than $10 billion in reported assets from rules limiting their stock market trading with deposits, reporting requirements, and other standards as long as they hold on to (maintain a "community bank leverage ratio") of between 8 and 10 percent. : Frees banks that accept "broker deposits" from other banks (banks that help rich people get around FDIC insurance limits -) from having to hold onto more money to make up for the risk these accounts pose to the banks who accept them. - PROTECTIONS FOR VETERANS, CONSUMERS, AND HOMEOWNERS : Requires that credit reporting agencies place a security freeze, free of charge, for consumers within 1 business day if requested by phone or Internet or 3 business days if requested by mail. Within 5 business days, the agencies must then inform the consumer that the freeze has been placed and inform the consumer how to remove the freeze. Removals must be done within one hour of a phone or Internet request and 3 business days if requested by mail. Temporary removal requests must be granted for the time requested by the consumer. Credit freezes will not stop law enforcement, debt collectors, or "any person using the information for employment, tenant, or background screening purposes" from accessing a "frozen" credit report. Requires that the credit reporting agencies each set up a website for requesting freezes, requesting fraud alerts, and opting out of having their personal information sold to marketers. The Federal Trade Commission will also set up a single website linking to the websites of the credit reporting agencies (likely ) : In response to the reporting of medical debt of veterans due to delayed payments to non-VA doctors as part of the Veteran's Choice Program, if a medical service is delinquent by less than a year, the veteran can submit information to the credit rating agencies and have that medical debt removed from their report. Within 1 year, the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs must create a database to allow credit reporting agencies to verify veterans' medical debt. Within 1 year, the Federal Trade Commission will have to create regulations requiring that active duty military members be given credit monitoring services for free : Grants immunity to people and the banks who employ them for reporting financial fraud against a senior citizen as long as they have received training for spotting financial abuse. : TAILORING REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANIES : By the beginning of 2020, the threshold for a bank to be subjected to stress tests and extra requirements for holding onto actual cash will be changed so that the only banks subject to those regulations are ones with over $250 billion in assets, as opposed to the $50 billion threshold enacted by Dodd-Frank. Also changes the frequency of stress tests for big banks (over $250 billion in assets) from "semiannual" to "periodic", which could be as little as once every three years. It also reduces the number of scenarios to be test from 3 to 2. : Loosens the definition of a "custodial bank" in a way that allows the big banks to qualify. It then allows the money the banks have in a the Federal Reserve or other central banks to be omitted from calculations for their supplementary leverage ratio, allowing the banks to cook the books in order to hold onto less money. : ENCOURAGING CAPITAL FORMATION : The "Supporting America's Innovators Act" allows venture capital funds with up to 250 investors to get out of registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The previous threshold was 100 individual investors. : Doubles from $5 million to $10 million the amount of securities a company can sell in a year before having to give additional information to investors, which will increase along with inflation. : PROTECTIONS FOR STUDENT BORROWERS : Prohibits private banks from declaring an automatic default or accelerated repayment of student loans in the case of a co-signer's death and banks will have to release from responsibility a co-signer if the student dies. This will only apply to student loans that are created in 2019 or after. : Allows banks to remove a customer's student loan debt from their credit report if the bank decides to give the student a new monthly loan repayment program and the student makes their payments. Resources Amicus Brief: Company Info: Congressional Budget Office: Congressional Budget Summary: Graph: , FRED, May 18, 2018. Govtrack: Govtrack: Govtrack: H.R. 650 (114th): OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Senate Archives: Sound Clip Sources Video: , May 21, 2018. Sheldon Whitehouse: I think what has very clearly happened is that unlimited money—and its nasty big brother, unlimited dark money—have showed up since the Citizens United decision and basically driven Congress into a state of servitude to those who have the wherewithal to engage with us with all that dark money. So, parity _____(01:07) the problem. It’s just not capable of being—reaching a state of parity by its nature, which is why spotlighting it and going after it and explaining it to the American people is so important, because there is a winning and important story to be told here. And if we win this issue—this is like the Death Star. In Star Wars, they didn’t go fight the evil empire on every single planet; they went after the Death Star, and once they won the Death Star, everything else moved in a better direction. If we can solve the dark-money problem, then we can start to win on pharmaceuticals, on Wall Street, on environment, on fossil fuels, on a whole variety of other issues. And that’s why they fight so desperately to protect this, because they know it’s their Death Star, too. If you look out at the American public, you see a very large segment of the American public that feels it is not being listened to. They don’t believe that Washington is listening, they don’t believe that the powers of government reflected here are listening to them, and they’re not wrong. If you look at the Bartels’ Princeton study, it shows that there is essentially zero statistical correlation between what we do in Congress and what regular people want Congress to do. Move up to the one percent, move up to the big corporations, and suddenly there’s a very, very powerful statistical correlation. So it is very clear that in fact in many significant ways the government of the United States has indeed been captured by big special interests. The DISCLOSE Act, requiring transparency for all political contributions, is permitted by the Citizens United decision. And if you live in a tropical climate and go into the kitchen at night and turn on the light, you will often see cockroaches skittering for the shadows and for the corners when you turn on the light at night in the kitchen. In the same way, you turn on the light of disclosure—and I think a lot of the cockroaches skitter for the shadows, and probably, and my guess, two-thirds of the unlimited spending supported by Citizens United goes away when it’s not anonymous any longer. The dark-money operation is all over. It is after us in elections, it is after us in administrative agencies, it is after us with lobbying in the halls of Congress, it is after us in all these different ways I’ve just described in the courts. We are taking essentially dark money, artillery fire, every single moment on multiple fronts. In artillery, there is a thing called counter battery, where you fire back at the artillery that is firing at you. That needs to be a priority for Democrats. We need to make sure that the spotlight of disclosure is on these webs, on these networks, focused on the special interests behind the front groups, focused on the creepy billionaires who are spending this money, so that the American public sees what is really going on. That is our job, and every day that we are not doing that job, we are losing and we are failing in our duty to this country. Video: , Laws and Sausage TV, April 24, 2018. Jeffrey Taylor: Well, again, that’s the other thing: trying to get on the—try to get support for your bill from the industry associations and the think tanks that weigh in on these kinds of things. Early on, we had the more free market, the more—well, free market, like the Chamber of Commerce and other financial services groups, but a little later in the process, we also had on a group that is considered left of center, the national state securities secretaries association called NASAA. And the minute they came on the bill, “Katy, bar the door!” All of a sudden, a number of Democrats had to say, “Well, if they’re on the bill, there must be some merit here.” And that’s actually when we started to have more dialog on the Left, trying to make this a bipartisan bill. Jeffrey Taylor: When you have NASAA and the U.S. Chamber, you’re now covering the waterfront on the political spectrum, and we were able to move forward. There are some people like Senator Warren that you will never get, because they believe in highly regulating the financial services. And you can talk to Senator Warren and her colleagues all you want, and you kind of know at the end of the day, we tried but we know we’ll never get there. But there are others like Senator Heitkamp, Senator Donnelly, Senator Warren that there’s a good chance, because they’re pro-business Democrats, that maybe we can get them on board, and then once we get one or two on board, others will come on board because they trust their judgment. So, it’s all putting a puzzle together. And you’re absolutely right: finding the outside interests that are trusting to Democrats and are trusting to Republicans, and we were able to do that. Host Brian Trascher: Well, Jeff, you pretty well explained your strategy thus far. How do you think you’re going to spend the rest of 2018 to try to keep your bill moving forward, and in an election year, get something done before the next Congress takes over? Jeffrey Taylor: Well, what we’re hopeful is is that the Senate banking committee actually did pass a bill recently. It had come over from the House. It’s bill S.2155. And that is a compendium of a lot of bills—securities bills—and so ours is not in that bill. But what the Senate did was, it made changes to the original House bill. So when the Senate passes a bill like that, it has to go back to the House because both bills have to be absolutely spot-on identical. And so now that it’s back in the House, we’re going back to Senator Jeb Hensarling and some of the other members and say, “Listen, in the intervening months, we passed a 426-to-zero bill. How about putting our bill into the bigger 2155?” And so based on all of the interaction we have so far, they’re seriously considering that. They’re seriously considering putting one or two bills that passed over the last four or five months into 2155. They’ll put it into 2155, send it back to the Senate, and hopefully at that point the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will say, “Well, good grief. These are all unanimous votes. There really is nothing contentious here, so, okay, we will now pass the revised 2155,” which actually has our bill 477 in it, and we’re in good shape at that point. So those are the kind of negotiations that are going on right now, putting our smaller bill into the larger bill going. And so we’ll keep ______(01:58—with that). Go ahead. Trascher: Yeah, and piggybacking is also a very good strategy when sometimes your particular instrument stalls or meets with some resistance, a lot of times you can get it thrown into something that has a lot more momentum and is in a posture to pass. Host Brian Trascher: Well, you’re right: it is rare to get a unanimous vote in the House unless it’s to rename a post office or something. To what do you credit your success in getting that unanimous vote in the House? Was it because of the two high-profile sponsors, bipartisan sponsors, who latched onto the bill? Jeffrey Taylor: Well, Maxine Waters didn’t latch on right away. And in fact, when we made it through the committee, it was still a bipartisan bill. I think it was split right down the middle, although you could tell that there were a number of Democrats on the committee that liked the bill but it needed some corrections. And at that point, that’s when lobbyists come in and say, “Okay, Congresswoman Waters, this really is dead in the Senate if we don’t have some kind of bipartisan support in the House.” And so we sat down with her team and said, “All right. Let’s go through the bill line by line, and we’ll bring in our experts, and you bring in your experts, and let’s really tear this thing apart. You know, obviously, we can’t bring Democrats on if we all of a sudden equally lose Republicans, so where can we find that sweet spot?” And her staff was very accommodating. “Here are the three areas, Jeffrey. What can you do that doesn’t harm the overall bill?” And we were able to tweak each of these areas, and at the end of the day, to Congresswoman Waters’ credit, she said, “Done. That’s a good bill now.” We went to the floor, Mrs. Waters spoke on behalf of the bill, Chairman Hensarling spoke on behalf of the bill, and boom, 426 to zero. It can still be done. You can still find the happy medium. The problem is, it’s much more difficult in the Senate. Everybody thinks that the House is the more partisan. In fact, there’re a lot of bills going from the House to the Senate. It’s in the Senate where things are not even getting hearings and trying to get to the floor of the Senate for a vote. And I think part of that is the mismanagement of Senator Chuck Schumer, who has told all of the Democratic senators, “We are the resistance. We are not going to proceed.” And boy, when you start with a premise like that, it’s hard to get things even to the batter’s box in the U.S. Senate. Community Suggestions Video: See more community suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD173: War & Prairie Chickens

14 maj 2018 | 125 min

The law that funded the government for 2018 is 2,232 pages and Jen has finished reading a quarter of it. In this episode, learn about the most interesting provisions she found in the Department of Defense and environmental sections of the quickly passed funding law. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The 2018 Government Funding Law Read the latest Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD171: CD168: CD167: CD145: CD131: Additional Reading Report: by Colin Demarest, Aiken Standard, May 11, 2018. Statement: , National Nuclear Security Administration, May 10, 2018. Report: by Loveday Morris, Ruth Eglash, and Louisa Loveluck, The Washington Post, May 10, 2018. Article: in Syria by Laurent Lozano, Yahoo News, May 10, 2018. Report: by Isabel Kershner and David M. Halbfinger, New York Times, May 10, 2018. Article: by Sammy Fretwell, The State, May 10, 2018. Report: by Staff Reporst, The Augusta Chronicle, May 10, 2018. Article: , BBC News, May 9, 2018. Report: by Dan Williams and Angus McDowall, Reuters, May 9, 2018. Report: by Yochanan Visser, Israel Today, May 9, 2018. Article: by Rachel Christiansen, Nevada Public Radio, May 9, 2018. Report: by Zeina Karam, Time, May 8, 2018. Article: by David M. Halbfinger, New York Times, May 8, 2018. Analysis: by Allison Kaplan Sommer, Haaretz, April 29, 2018. Report: by Ben Hubbard and David M. Halbfinger, New York Times, April 9, 2018. Article: by Colin Demarest, Aiken Standard, March 14, 2018. Report: , Office of Fossil Energy, March 8, 2018. Article: , Aljazeera, February 23, 2018. Article: by Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News, February 12, 2018. Report: by TOI Staff and Agencies, The Times of Israel, February 11, 2018. Report: by Maayan Lubell and Lisa Barrington, Reuters, February 10, 2018. Report: by Donna Abu-Nasr and Gwen Ackerman, Bloomberg, February 10, 2018. Article: by Ari Natter and Catherine Traywick, Bloomberg, February 8, 2018. Opinion: by Patrick Leahy, The New York Times, November 22, 2017. Article: by Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal, New York Times, November 16, 2017. Analysis: by Amos Harel, Haaretz, April 3, 2017. Article: by Gili Cohen and Almog Ben Zikri, Haaretz, March 19, 2017. Article: by Bethan McKernan, Independent, February 1, 2017. Article: by Robert Parkhurst, Environmental Defense Fund, December 13, 2016. Article: , The New York Times, February 9, 2016. Report: by Amitav Ranjan, The Indian Express, January 5, 2016. Article: by Sandra Fish, Aljazeera, December 13, 2013. Article: by Simon Black, Business Insider, March 29, 2012. Report: , CBS News, April 30, 2008. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, December 8, 2007. Report: by Items copiled from Tribune news services, Chicago Tribune, February 15, 2006. Report: by Faisal Islam, The Guardian, February 15, 2003. Resources Bill: Bill: Bill: Bill: International Atomic Energy Agency: National Nuclear Security Administration: Office of Fossil Energy: Open Secrets: Open Secrets: Open Secrets: Open Secrets: Open Secrets: Press Release: Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: ; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; October 30, 2017. 8:00 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): In his last War Powers Resolution letter to Congress, the president identified the following 19 countries where U.S. military personnel were deployed and equipped for combat: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD172: The Illegal Bombing of Syria

30 april 2018 | 154 min

On Friday the 13th of April, President Trump bombed the government of Syria… Again. In this episode, learn some of the little-discussed history of and reasons for the on-going attempts to overthrow the government of Syria. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD167: Additional Reading Article: by Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, April 26, 2018. Article: by Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, April 18, 2018. Report: , Aljazeera, April 18, 2018. Report: , France24, April 17, 2018. Interview: , Interview by Jonathan Masters of John B. Bellinger III, Council on Foreign Relations, April 15, 2018. Letter: , April 15, 2018. Report: by Jennifer Bendery, Huffpost, April 13, 2018. Interview: Interview by Zachary Laub of Mona Yacoubian, Council on Foreign Relations, April 13, 2018. Report: by Shawn Snow, Marine Times, April 13, 2018. Report: , Aljazeera News, April 12, 2018. Report: by Tara Copp, Military Times, April 9, 2018. Press Release: , MFA Russia, February 20, 2018. Article: by Liz Sly, The Washington Post, March 6, 2018. Report: by Robert Burns, AP News, February 2, 2018. Article: by Max Abrahms and John Glaser, Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2017. Report: [Syria investigator del Ponte signs off with a sting](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-, mideast-crisis-syria-investigator/syria-investigator-del-ponte-signs-off-with-a-sting-idUSKCN1BT29Q) by Reuters Staff, Reuters, September 18, 2017. Article: by Seymour M. Hersh, Welt, June 25, 2017. Article: by Paul Cochrane, Middle East Eye, May 10, 2017. Article: by Tareq Haddad, Yahoo, April 17, 2017. Report: by Tareq Haddad, International Business Times, Yahoo, April 17, 2017. Report: by Michael R. Gordon, Helene Cooper, and Michael D. Shear, The New York Times, April 6, 2017. Report: by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, November 21, 2016. Article: by Max Blumenthal, Alternet, October 2, 2016. Meetings Coverage: by UN Security Council, December 18, 2015. Article: by Sarah Burke, NBC News, October 30, 2015. Report: by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The Washington Post, August 18, 2014. Article: , DW, January 18, 2014. Book Review: by Seymour M. Hersh, London Review of Books, December 19, 2013. Article: , DW, December 13, 2013. Article: by Simon Tisdall and Josie Le Blond, The Guardian, September 9, 2013. Article: by Nicholas Watt and Nick Hopkins, The Guardian, August 29, 2013. Article: by Alex Thomson, Channel 4, August 28, 2013. Article: by Thom Shanker, C.J. Chivers, and Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, August 27, 2013. Report: by Agence France-Presse, Hurriyet Daily News, August 8, 2013. Analysis: by Bridget Kendall, BBC News, May 6, 2013. Report: by TOI Staff, Times of Israel, May 6, 2013. Report: by Adam Clark Estes, The Atlantic, May 5, 2013. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, May 5, 2013. Letter: by The Associated Press, The Seattle Times, April 25, 2013. Article: by Rodrigo Abd, NPR, May 29, 2012. Article: by Max Fisher, The Atlantic, January 3, 2012. Report: by Stephen Glain, The National, January 6, 2009. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, May 26, 2008. Article: by Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, March 5, 2007. Article: , International Monetary Fund, May 14, 2006. Report: by Warren Hoge, The New York Times, December 12, 2005. Article: by Evan Osnos, Chicago Tribune, April 22, 2005. Resources Congressional Research Service: Council on Foreign Relations: by Zachary Laub Country Reports on Terrorism: Gov. Publishing Office: IMF Working Paper: by Jeanne Gobat and Kristina Kostial Pipeline Report: Public Law: Public Law: Scientific Advisory Board: UN News: June 30, 2012 UN Security Council Report: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: ; House Foreign Affairs Committee; April 18, 2018. Witnesses: -David Satterfield - Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State - Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs - Wess Mitchell - Assistant Secretary of State of European and Eurasian Affairs 15:25 David Satterfield: While preventing the use of chemical weapons in Syria is our immediate concern, the administration’s priority remains the defeat of ISIS. ISIS has lost nearly all of the territory it once controlled in Iraq and Syria, but the fight in Syria still has to be pursued to its conclusion. More broadly, the United States supports a unified and territorially whole Syria. This objective is served by U.S. support for the UN-led Geneva political process, established by UN Security Council Resolution 2254, in which process the U.S. believes strongly that representatives of all Syrians, including all its Kurdish components, should fully participate. 16:30 David Satterfield: The Iraqi government is stabilizing communities, including minority communities that suffered greatly from ISIS, and now we’re beginning private-sector-led, investment-driven reconstruction. 34:15 Representative Eliot Engel (NY): To me, ISIS is one prong of something, an important prong, but one prong of what we should be doing. I really think to rid Syria of the butcher Assad ought to be as important as our ISIS concerns. David Satterfield: I strongly agree with you that a Syria in which Assad remains as leader of this regime is not a Syria which we would predict to be meaningfully secure or stable, or not a source of generation of threat and violent extremism under whatever name in the future, and it’s why we have strongly supported a political process led by the UN. Unfortunately, that political process has been blocked, and the parties responsible for blocking it are quite clear: it’s the Syrian regime itself and the Russians, who through their absence of pressure on the regime in Damascus contributes to, enables this freezing of a Geneva process which, virtually, the entire international community supports. Engel: And through the veto in the United Nations. Satterfield: Exactly, sir. 1:02:20 Representative Dana Rohrabacher: What is our purpose in Syria? Will we accept anything less than—would we accept a compromise that would keep Assad in power, at least in part of Syria, or is our goal and our purpose only to totally eliminate the Assad government? David Satterfield: Mr. Rohrabacher, our purpose of our forces in Syria, as Secretary Mattis, Chairman Dunford have stated repeatedly, is to defeat ISIS. The purpose of our diplomacy, of our international engagement, with respect to Syria, is to support a political process, which at its end has a revised constitution, elections conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. And our belief is that those elections, if freely and fairly conducted amongst all Syrians, including the émigré Syrian communities, would not produce the survival of the Assad regime. Rohrabacher: Okay, let me just note, what you described wasn’t just Syria, but probably three-quarters of the countries of the Middle East. And if we made those demands of—why is it that Syria, we have to make those demands against Syria and not against all these other countries in the Middle East? Satterfield: Because, sir, of the extraordinary depredations of this regime in this country against its citizens, because of the extraordinary and historically unprecedented, in modern times, outflow of— Rohrabacher: You don’t think the rest of the countries in the Middle East have similar track records? You’re trying to tell me that—well, we heard the same thing, of course, about Saddam Hussein, we heard the same thing about Gaddafi, and we ended up creating total chaos—total chaos—in that part of the world. Satterfield: No regime in modern history in the Middle East, including Saddam Hussein’s— Rohrabacher: Yes. Satterfield: —has killed as many of its own citizens, has produced external and internal displacement of its own citizens on the scale of the Assad regime. No. It’s unique, sadly. Rohrabacher: Well, let me just say, Mr. Ambassador, you read history differently than I do. That is an area that is filled with dictators, it’s filled with authoritarian regimes, filled with our allies, that if people rose up against them as they’re rising up against Assad—he’s a bad guy, he’s a dictator, he’s everything you said, but he’s not that different from these other regimes once they are challenged. Once they were challenged, don’t tell me the Qatar government wouldn’t mow down all of their guest workers if there was an uprising in Qatar, and vice versa with these other regimes. I’m very disturbed by the fact that we’re sliding into a war and not having an out that will not lead us to major military commitments to that region. That would be a disaster, and I think it’s based on the analysis that you just said: that Assad is somewhat different than everybody else. I don’t think so. News: ; CNN News; April 17, 2018. Meeting: ; U.N. Security Council; April 14, 2018. Testimony: ; House Armed Services Committee; April 12, 2018. Witnesses: - James Mattis - Secretary of Defense - General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. - Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 41:42 Secretary of Defense James Mattis: On Syria, sir, both the last administration and this one made very clear that our role in Syria is the defeat of ISIS. We are not going to engage in the civil war itself. Now, you can look back to a year ago when we did fire missiles into Syria, unrelated to ISIS, and that was, of course, the use of chemical weapons. And some things are simply inexcusable, beyond the pale, and in the worst interest of not just the Chemical Weapons Convention but of civilization itself. 42:48 Secretary of Defense James Mattis: And the only reason Assad is still in power is because of the Russians’ regrettable vetoes in the UN, and the Russian and Iranian military. So, how do we deal with this very complex situation? First of all, we are committed to ending that war though the Geneva process, the UN orchestrated effort. It has been unfulfilled because, again, Russia has continually blocked the efforts. 50:10 Representative Niki Tsongas (MA): So as you’re considering possible steps forward—military actions you might take— what do you hope to achieve by any military action that the administration might eventually decide to take? Secretary of Defense James Mattis: Congresswoman, I don’t want to get, as you’ll understand, into the details of a potential decision by the commander in chief, due to this latest attack, which is absolutely inexcusable. There have been a number of these attacks. In many cases, you know we don’t have troops. We’re not engaged on the ground there, so I cannot tell you that we had evidence, even though we certainly had a lot of media and social-media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used. As far as our current situation, if, like last time, we decide we have to take military action in regard to this chemical weapons attack, then, like last time, we will be reporting to Congress just as we did when we fired a little over a year ago, slightly over a year ago. As far as the counter violent extremists, counter ISIS— Tsongas: So, let me go back to this. So, before taking any action, you would report to Congress as to the nature of what that action might be. Mattis: I will speak only to the fact that we will report to Congress. We’ll keep open lines of communication. There will be notification to the leadership, of course, prior to the attack. But we’ll give a full report to the Congress itself, probably as rapidly as possible. 54:05 Secretary of Defense James Mattis: I believe there was a chemical attack, and we’re looking for the actual evidence. The OPCW—this is the organization for the Chemical Weapons Convention—we’re trying to get those inspectors in, probably within the week. 1:00:42 Representative Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Secretary, a Military Times article this week revealed that the Defense Manpower Data Center failed to report the number of combat troops deployed in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan last quarter. That website was also stripped of deployment data from previous quarters. I’m very concerned about that. I think that there’s no combat advantage to obfuscating the number of U.S. service members that were in these countries three months ago, and, furthermore, the American public has a right to know. Do you intend to restore that information to the website? Secretary of Defense James Mattis: I’ll look at it, Congresswoman. As you know, we keep the Congress fully informed, right down to every week. We can update you on exactly the numbers in each case, and we do maintain some degree of confidentiality over the number of troops engaged against enemies in the field. So, I’ll have to look at it. But we will not, of course, ever keep those numbers away from members of Congress, for your oversight. Speier: Well, I know, but this has been an ongoing website that’s provided this information to the public, and all of a sudden, the last quarter, it’s not posted, and they’ve sweeped away all the data for previous quarters. So, it would suggest to, I think, the public and to members of this Congress that you are no longer going to make that information available, and I think the public has a right to know. Mattis: I see. When I come in, ma’am, I don’t come in intending to hide things, but I would just ask, what would you do if you thought the enemy could take advantage of that kind of data, seeing trends at certain times of the year and what they can expect in the future? But I’ll certainly look at it. I share your conviction that the American people should know everything that doesn’t give the enemy an advantage. Speier: Thank you. I yield back. 1:18:09 Representative John Garamendi (CA): What is the legal authority—the precise legal authority—of the United States government to engage in military action in response to the chemical weapons use by the Assad regime? Secretary of Defense James Mattis: Right. I believe that authority’s under Article II. We have forces in the field, as you know, in Syria, and the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not something that we should assume that, well, because you didn’t use them on us this time, you wouldn’t use them on us next time. 1:28:35 Representative Tulsi Gabbard (HI): You know, the president has indicated recently his intention to launch U.S. military attacks against Syria. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has not done so against the Syrian government. Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities. Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution clarifies the constitutional powers of the president as commander in chief. In Article II, which you referenced, Secretary Mattis, to introduce forces into hostilities only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack upon the U.S., its territories, possessions, or armed forces. Syria’s not declared war against the U.S. or threatened the U.S. The launch of 59 missiles against Syria by Trump last year was illegal and did not meet any of those criteria in the War Powers Resolution. The consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, which was signed into law by President Trump, states that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used with respect to Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution, including for the introduction of U.S. armed military forces into hostilities in Syria. My question is, will the president uphold the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and comply with the law that he signed by obtaining authorization from Congress before launching U.S. military attacks against Syria? Secretary of Defense James Mattis: Congresswoman, we have not yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria. I think that when you look back at President Obama sending the U.S. troops into Syria at the time he did, he also had to deal with this type of situation, because we were going after a named terrorist group that was not actually named in the AUMF that put them in. This is a complex area, I’ll be the first to admit. Gabbard: It is simple, however, what the Constitution requires. So while you’re correct in saying the president has not yet made a decision, my question is, will he abide by the Constitution and comply with the law? Mattis: Yeah. I believe that the president will carry out his duties under the Constitution to protect the country. Interview: ; CNN; April 9, 2018. Interview: ; Meet the Press; April 9, 2018. Testimony: ; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; January 11, 2018. Witnesses: - David Satterfield - Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs 13:45 David Satterfield: A stable Syria absolutely requires the departure of President Assad and his regime. They’ve inflicted suffering and countless deaths on the Syrian people, including use of chemical weapons. This regime is a magnet for terror. It is incapable of democratically leading the whole of Syria. We, our allies, have come to Russia with a path towards the Syrian political transition, towards a political solution, on many occasions, and we call on Russia again today to pressure the regime to work seriously towards a political resolution to this conflict. 14:37 Sen. Bob Corker (TN): We are now not demanding that Assad leave. Instead, as I understand it, we’re embracing the UN resolution as Putin has recently done. Is that correct? David Satterfield: That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. Corker: And that would mean that there would then be an election that would take place. Satterfield: There would be a constitutional reform and revision process, and then there would be an electoral process. That electoral process would be fully under UN monitoring and supervision. Corker: And is it true that—it’s my sense that people like you and others believe that if that process occurs as has been laid out and as supported right now by Russia, do you believe that the way Assad would go through a democratic election where he would lose? Satterfield: Mr. Chairman, we cannot conceive of a circumstance which a genuinely fair electoral process overseen by the UN, with participation of a Syrian displaced community, could lead to a result in which Assad remained at the helm. 21:20 David Satterfield: First step was the defeat of ISIS. As long as ISIS remained a potent fighting force in Syria, the bandwidth, the space to deal with these broader strategic challenges, including Iran and, of course, Assad and the regime, simply wasn’t there. But that bandwidth is being freed up now. With the UN process, with international support for a credible electoral and constitutional reform process, we see political transition in Syria as a potentially achievable goal. We don’t underestimate the challenges ahead. It’s going to be hard—very hard—to do. Assad will cling to power at almost every cost possible. But with respect to Iran, we will treat Iran in Syria and Iran’s enablement of Hezbollah as a separate strategic issue. How do you deal with it? You deal with it in all places that it manifests itself, which is not just Syria, but Iraq, Yemen, the Gulf, other areas where Iran’s maligned behaviors affect our and our allies’ national interests. Difficult challenge, but not impossible challenge, and it is one we are seized with right now, but having a politically transformed Syria will, in and of itself, be a mitigating and minimizing factor on Iran’s influence, and the opposite is also true. Satterfield: We are working on stabilization in the north and the northeast right now very successfully and with a minimum of U.S. physical presence. About 2,000 U.S. military and seven, soon to be 10, foreign service colleagues. This is a highly efficient operation, and it’s working on the ground. But those are only the first steps. The 2254 political process, the process that the entire international community of like-minded states has signed on to, is the key. It’s the key to addressing Assad and his departure; it is the key to resolving the question of foreign forces and Iranian influence. And what are our levers, what are our tools to move that forward? They are denial of legitimacy and authenticity to any claim of victory by the regime or its supporters in Moscow or Tehran, and the withholding of reconstruction funds, which are vital to the regime and we think Moscow’s interests over the long term. Those are potent levers. 48:58 Sen. Bob Corker: As I understand, the troops that are there, they’re not involved in combat. Is that correct? David Satterfield: Senator, there are still combat activities going on in the middle Euphrates valley. The campaign against the so-called Caliphate, that is, the territorially structured presence of ISIS, is not over yet. That campaign continues. The level of fighting has significantly diminished since the days of urban conflict in Mayadeen, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor. But the fight goes on, and there is combat activity. Corker: But, most of their efforts are in support of those that are actually on the front lines. Satterfield: They are in facilitation of the SDF efforts, who have consistently carried this fight since the beginning. 49:47 Sen. Ron Johnson (OH): Reconstructing Syria’s going to cost somewhere in the order of 200 to 300 billion dollars. Is that…? David Satterfield: That’s a general international estimate, sir. Johnson: So, who has that kind of money? Satterfield: I can tell you who doesn’t: the Syrian regime, Moscow, and Tehran. Who does? The international community companies, international financial institutions. They’ve got the money collectively, but that money is not going to flow into a Syria which has not gone through a political transformation and transition. Hearing: ; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; October 30, 2017. 2:55:15 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Do you think there can be a lasting peace there as long as Assad is in power, and does the current AUMF give you the ability, General Mattis, to be able to deal with that issue if you think that has to be resolved? That might be one example. Rex Tillerson: Well, the current AUMF only authorizes our fight against ISIS in Syria, as I indicated in my remarks. We’re not there to fight the regime. There is no authority beyond the fight against ISIS. Therefore, we have to pursue a future Syria that’s kept whole and intact, and a process, which the UN Security Council process does provide a process by which, in our view, the Assad regime will step down from power. Breaking News: ; MSNBC; April 13, 2017. Breaking News: ; CNN; April 7, 2017. Report: ; The Young Turks; November 1, 2016. Interview: ; Democracy Now!; August 6, 2016. Hearing: ; House Foreign Affairs Committee; November 4, 2015. Witnesses: - Anne Patterson - Assistant Secretary of State - Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State Statement: ; Secretary of State Clinton calls on Assad to resign Interview: ; Charlie Rose; March 10, 2014. Debate: ; House of Commons; August 29, 2013. Press Briefing: ; Telegraph; August 21, 2012. Testimony: ; House International Relations Committee; September 16, 2003. Speech: ; George Bush; February 26, 2003. Witnesses: - John Bolton - then Undersecretary at the Department of State for Arms Control, current National Security Advisor 53:12 Former Representative Gary Ackerman (NY): Are we talking about regime change in Syria if they do not voluntarily rid themselves of whatever it is we’re saying they have or do that threatens our national security? John Bolton: Mr. Ackerman, as the president has made clear and as we are directed, our preference is to solve these problems by peaceful and diplomatic means. But the president has also been very clear that we’re not taking any options off the table. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD171: 2,232 Pages

14 april 2018 | 121 min

In a special crossover episode of The David Pakman Show on YouTube, hear the infuriating story of how the 2,232 page “omnibus” government funding bill became law , discover a provision snuck into law that further erodes privacy rights, learn why only some stoners and legit medical marijuana patients are protected by the omnibus, and hear about some strange provisions that appear to give free reign to the intelligence agencies for the next six months. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Listening The David Pakman Show: - Jen guest hosting for David OR Additional Reading Article: by Lauren C. Williams, FCW, April 5, 2018. Article: by Jesse Rifkin, GovTrack Insider, March 29, 2018. Article: by Kate Irby, McClatchy DC, March 27, 2018. Article: by Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, March 23, 2018. Article: by John Wagner and Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, March 23, 2018. Article: by Taylor Hatmaker, Tech Crunch, March 22, 2018. Press Release: , House Judiciary Committee, March 22, 2018. Article: by The Hill Staff, The Hill, March 21, 2018. Article: by Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner, The Washington Post, March 21, 2018. Article: by Louise Matsakis, Wired, February 27, 2018. Article: by Erika I. Ritchie, Military.com, October 15, 2017. Article: by Lolita C. Baldor, Military.com, September 19, 2017. Article: by Hope Hodge Seck, Military.com, September 13, 2017. Article: by Michael Smith, Aiken Standard, August 2, 2017. Article: by Cheryl Pellerin, Department of Defense, July 21, 2017. Article: by Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News, January 18, 2017. Article: by Noah Shachtman, Wired, February 1, 2010. Issue: , The Atlantic, September 2002 Bill Outline Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by Congress "during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018". "None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." : Prohibits the Department of Defense from disposing of M-1 Carbine rifles, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols or to destroy ammunition that is allowed to be . Over $705 million will be spent on missile defense for Israel, with requirements that $420 million of that be shared with U.S. war equipment manufacturers, including at least $120 million to be shared with . Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. : Allows local military commanders - if the Defense Secretary creates regulations allowing it - to provide payments to people for damage, injuries, and deaths caused by the Armed Forces. : Prohibits the Defense Department from initiating or expanding support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals without informing Congress 15 days in advance, but the Defense Secretary can waive this and tell Congress within 72 hours. Military and civilian employees of the Defense Department can't use their Government Travel Charge Card on gambling or strippers. - $4.666 billion will be provided to the "security forces of Afghanistan, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, construction, and funding." - $1.769 billion will be provided for "assistance, including training; equipment; logistics support, supplies, and services; stipends; infrastructure repair and renovation; and sustainment, to foreign security forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating, or preparing to participate in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their affiliated or associated groups" - The money can also be used to "enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia." Prohibits the US Government from creating any permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan or from exercising "United States control over any oil resource of Iraq." Allows $500 million to be given to Jordan "to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security along its borders." Provides $200 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to "provide assistance , including training; equipment; lethal weapons of a defensive nature; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and for replacement of any weapons or defensive articles provided to the Government of Ukraine from the inventory of the United States" Allows the money in the Afghanistan Security Forces fund to be used to provide training, equipment, and "other assistance" that is . This is allowed as long as the Defense Secretary notifies Congress within 30 days. over $131 million ($100 million ) for Classified appropriations total $46,659,168,000, which is $2.3 billion more than requested. Prohibits permits from being required for the release of dredged or mill material from farming, ranching, construction and maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, and "transportation structures", construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of farm roads or forest roads, or for temporary roads for moving mining equipment. : Money appropriated for intelligence "by this or any other Act" are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" for ["intelligence or intelligence-related activity](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20section:3094%20edition:prelim) for the rest of fiscal year 2018 (until September 30, 2018) or until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from creating any new regional petroleum reserve unless the "reserve is explicitly requested in advance in an annual budget submission and approved by the Congress in an appropriations Act." Allows money to be used for the construction of the in South Carolina. Allows the Secretary of Energy to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the President determines that a regional supply shortage exists and there will be severe increase in the price of oil. Geothermal Energy: $80 million Wind Energy: $92 million Water Power: $105 million Solar Energy: $241 million Total Renewable Energy = $2.3 billion (Trump administration requested only $636 million) Fossil Fuel Energy Unconventional fossil fuels: $40 million Natural Gas: $50 million Coal: $481 million Fossil Fuels: $726 million Nuclear Energy: Over $1.2 billion Money appropriated by this Act for intelligence activities are "deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress" during fiscal year 2018 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Allows the Secretary of the Interior to remove wild horses and burros from public land and transfer them to other governmental agencies to be used a work animals. Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from protecting the sage grouse using the Endangered Species Act Enacts several provisions and full bills into law, including that renames the White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho after Cecil D. Andrus. Prohibits money from this or "any other Act" from being used to implement any regulation requiring permits for livestock producers to emit carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane. Prohibits money from being used to implement any regulation requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. Prohibits money from being used to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle. Prohibits permits from being required for the release of dredged or mill material from farming, ranching, construction and maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, and "transportation structures", construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, construction of farm roads or forest roads, or for temporary roads for moving mining equipment (this provision was also in Division D) Sec. 3: Adds human trafficking to the definition of “transnational organized crime” in order to allow the State Department to pay snitches. - allows the State Department to appropriate "such amounts as many be necessary" - Payments are capped at $25 million except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State. The cap is $50 million for information leading to the capture of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization. - Payments under $100,000 do not need approval from the Secretary of State. - The decisions made by the Secretary of States are final and can not be reviewed by the courts. - The from 1984 allowed payments capped at $500,000. Payments over $100,000 had to be approved by the President. Provides grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes to train school personnel and students to prevent school violence, develop and operate systems for anonymous reporting of threats (including apps, hotlines, and websites), placement of metal detectors, locks and lighting, and new technologies and "any other measure" that "may provide significant improvement in security". Authorizes $75 million in funding for 2018 and $100 million per year from 2019-2028. Requires that providers of electronic communication services "preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication" regardless of if that information is stored inside or outside of the United States. - Service providers can challenge the orders in court if they think the target is not a United States person and does not live in the United States and that the disclosure would break the law of a foreign government. It will be legal for electronic communication providers "to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication in response to an order from a foreign government". - Electronic communications providers can not be sued in court for complying with these information requests. In order for information sharing to occur between the US Government and a foreign government, the countries must enter into an "Executive Agreement" - The Executive Agreement will be valid if the Attorney General submits a written certification to Congress that the country has, among other qualifications, "robust substantial and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties" and is a party to the . - Determinations made by the Attorney General are not subject to judicial review. - The Executive Arrangement can not take effect until after 180 days after Congress is notified. - Congress can enact a joint resolution of disapproval to stop it. - An order issued by a foreign government has to identify a specific person, account, address, or personal device and the order must be for a fixed, limited duration. Orders by foreign governments are subject to review by our courts. Resources Bill Overview: Bill History: , Congress.gov Bill Summary: Bill Summary: , Congressional Budget Office, May 10, 2017 Amendment: Video: , H.R. 1625 Senate Committee Hearing, March 22, 2018. Hearing: , March 21, 2018. OR Video: , US Select Committee on Intelligence, Jan 22, 2018 Sales Info: , Civilian Marksmanship Program, 2017. Budget Info: , FY 2018. Budget Info: Public Law: , May 5, 2017 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD170: Electrifying Puerto Rico

25 mars 2018 | 196 min

On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria wiped out the electricity on the entire island of Puerto Rico. Six months later the lights are still off for too many people. In this episode, by hearing highlights of Congressional testimony from Puerto Rico's government officials and through stories of Jen's recent trip to the island, learn the good news and the bad news about life right now on Puerto Rico. Executive Producer: Ralph and Carol Lynn Rivera Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Recommended Listening Additional Reading Article: by Danica Coto, AP News, March 20, 2018. Article: by AJ Vicens, Grist, March 20, 2018. Article: by Naomi Klein, The Intercept, March 20, 2018. Report: by Dalissa Zeda Sanchez, Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Report: by Genesis Ibarra, Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Report: , Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Article: by John D. Stutter, CNN, March 15, 2018. Article: by Daniel Bases, Reuters, March 14, 2018. Press Release: , House Committee on Natural Resources, March 12, 2018. Report: by Luis J. Valentin Ortiz, City & State New York, March 11, 2018. Article: by Rick Jervis, USA Today, March 11, 2018. Article: by The Brian Lehrer Show, WNYC, March 8, 2018. Opinion: by Britt Fremstad, Public Citizen, 2018. Article: by Mimi Kirk, City Lab, February 27, 2018. Report: by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, February 21, 2018. Report: by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, February 3, 2018. Article: by Lara Merling, NACLA, February 1, 2018. Press Release: by House Committee on Natural Resources, January 25, 2018. Report: by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, January 24, 2018. Article: by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, January 24, 2018. Report: by Daniel Bases, Reuters, January 22, 2018. Report: by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, January 16, 2018. Article: by Alex Figueroa Cancel, El Nuevo Dia, January 16, 2018. Article: by Leysa Caro Gonzelez, El Nuevo Dia, January 16, 2018. Report: by Kate Aronof, The Intercept, January 10, 2018. Article: by Aric Jenkins, Time.com, December 19, 2017. Report: by Center for Investigative Journalism, Latino USA, December 7, 2017. Law Firm Post: by Erez Law Firm, December 6, 2017. Article: by Frances Robles, The New York Times, November 12, 2017. Article: by Bruce Kelly, Investment News, September 28, 2017. Report: by Sarah Almukhtar, Matthew Bloch, Ford Fessenden and Jugal K. Patel, The New York Times, September 26, 2017. Article: by Adriana Gonzelez, The Planet: Sierra Club, August 14, 2017. Report: by Julio Ricardo Varela, Latino USA, August 2, 2017. Report: by Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg, June 28, 2017. Report: by Cindy Burgos Alvarado, Caribbean Business, April 18, 2017. Article: by Jose A. Delgado Robles, El Nuevo Dia, March 29, 2017. Article: by Mitch Hulse, Atlantic Council, April 14, 2016. Article: by Mary Williams Walsh, The New York Times, February 1, 2016. Article: by Anne O. Krueger, Ranjit Teja, and Andrew Wolfe, GDB.PR.GOV, June 29, 2015. Article: by James Ellingworth, Business Insider, March 1,2015. Article: by Michelle Kantrow, Energy Answers, May 10, 2012. Research Paper: by Susana Maria Cortina de Cardenas, University of Iowa Research Online, Spring 2011. Resources DESMOG Blog Info: Energy Answers Resources: International Monetary Fund Bio: International Monetary Fund Blog: LinkedIn Profile: , Federal Oversight Management Board USDA Report: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: ; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, November 14, 2017. Witnesses: - Natalie Jaresko - Executive Director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico - Jose Roman Morales - Associate Commission and Interim President of the Puerto Rico Energy Commission - Ricardo Ramos - Executive Director of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority - Julio Rhymer - Executive Director of the US Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority 53:40 Ricardo Ramos: Many of the fallen poles fell because of the additional weight of infrastructure that originally was not supposed to be there, so the grid itself is old—are new. Design standards account for an amount of additional infrastructure for communications and other, but many of the poles were—they had communications because some local law of Puerto Rico permitted the common right-of-way usage, so we had to allow telecom companies to put the telecommunications cables there—but the pole itself not necessarily was designed to those standards. 59:10 Natalie Jaresko: So, as you know, Madame Chairman, the board took an action and filed in the Title III court to name a chief transformation officer. The court ruled yesterday against us in that action, although we have not yet seen the written judgment, so I can’t comment on it in detail. Hearing: ; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Witnesses: - Donald Jackson - Deputy Commanding General of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Civil and Emergency Operations - Kenneth Mapp - Governor of US Virgin Islands - Jose Roman Morales - Associate Commission and Interim President of the Puerto Rico Energy Commission - Ricardo “Ricky” Rossello - Governor of Puerto Rico - Bruce Walker - Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 38:20 Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy Bruce Walker: PREPA, with the limited crews that it had—I will point to this map over here—made an early decision to have to tie the southern portion, where the generation is, to the northern portion, where the load is. And in doing so, they made a key decision to construct the 230 kV line from the south, bringing it up to the San Juan area, the Bayamon substation. On the map, you can see here, from down here, wrapping up through here, that that align is going to appear all the way over to here. What was important about that was that one decision and the efforts made by PREPA, with limited staffing, enabled the power to be distributed to where the load was and in conjunction with the other big decision, which is the next slide, Jennifer, the Army Corps, working with PREPA, installed two 25-megawatt generators at the Palo Seco generation plant, and that, in conjunction with the rebuild of the 230 line, enabled power to be distributed to the northern portion to start picking up commercial and residential customers. Those two efforts were monumental, given the facts and circumstances. The installation of this generator was, with the letting of the contract and the install—and I was at Palo Seco when this was being put in—and the work that had to be done was really incredible—we had fantastic support from PREPA in coordinating it particularly with the re-laying and the coordination with the Army Corps. 1:10:00 Governor Ricardo Rossello: We have several flaws in terms of the design, aside from having antiquated power plants. Most of our generation was done in the south, yet most of the people and most of the consumption is done in the north, so you lose about 12 to 15% in the transmission, going northward. It is time, it is an opportunity, to rethink that, where do we have that generation and make it better? Piggybacking on Senator Cassidy’s comments, I think it is an opportunity also to leapfrog in renewables. I’ve envisioned us leapfrogging to 25% renewables in Puerto Rico and recognizing that there are some mitigation strategies that we need to put in place. That is why we have worked with the PREPA governing board to have a group of thought leaders that can actually help us in the design, looking forward, and specifically looking where this could happen. Last-mile events in Puerto Rico are very important. It’s important to consider the terrain. Puerto Rico’s not flat; it’s got a mountainous region. And so we will be very aggressively pursuing that we get to 90, 95% of energy consumption and energy generation, but that last mile always takes more time because there are sort of remote areas of the island. This is an opportunity to make microgrids in Puerto Rico so that they can be sustained in different areas. And, lastly, adding to this whole component of renewables, I think it is an opportunity to look at this from a bottom-up-and-a-top-down approach. With the collaboration of FEMA, we were able to, for the first time in the STEP program, allow that either a power plant generator be added to the house or a renewable battery-pack solar combo be added to those homes in the STEP program. Now, we expect that there will be about 80,000 homes that will be introduced in the STEP program. Think about what that means if half of them decide to go with the renewable battery-pack route. It means that now you have the starting conditions to actually think about things like a virtual power plant in Puerto Rico, where you can have smart distribution of the energy; and where some days it might be cloudy in some areas in Puerto Rico—it’ll be sunny, certainly, in others as well—and that energy can be distributed alongside, of course, a complement of utility-size and industrial-size generation, which I envision, Senator, should start transitioning from petroleum-based generation, which is costly and, of course, more harmful, to liquid-gas and so forth generation. So, those are, in a nutshell, what we envision the sort of future grid of Puerto Rico looking like. 1:34:15 Senator Catherine Cortez Masto: It’s my understanding under the Stafford Act, it’s Section 406(e), that limits the use of federal disaster-relief funds for repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately before the major disaster. Now, my understanding of that, then, is that all of the talk that I’ve heard today, which is important talk about new infrastructure—burying lines, looking at how we add renewable capacity—that is something that is not going to be addressed through the funding, through the relief, that comes from the federal government. Is that correct? And I guess I’m asking Mr. Walker and General Jackson, is that your understanding? Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy Bruce Walker: That is my understanding. As I mentioned earlier, we’re doing emergency restoration work now. A number of the things that have been mentioned here, if the Congress approves additional appropriations, those would be opportunities that we could further, you know, build into— Masto: And that’s—are you asking today, then? That’s what you’re asking Congress today, additional appropriations outside of the Stafford Act be able to set up new infrastructure and do just what we’ve heard today, because we know another hurricane’s going to come through, or some other disaster. I think it’s just the way the climate is today. Is that the ask today from the governors? Governor Ricardo Rossello: To amend that, could you repeat the question, Senator? Masto: Sure. So, the Stafford Act limits the amount of— Rossello: Yeah. Masto: —money that you’re getting from the federal government for disaster relief to repair and reconstruct. Rossello: Yeah. Masto: It is not for new construction or new types of renewable energy or burying lines. So, are you coming today for additional funds outside of the Stafford Act, outside of disaster relief? Is that what I’m hearing today? Governor Kenneth Mapp: Yes. Yes, because under Stafford, if a system connected to the power generation isn’t damaged, it can’t be touched. If it’s cost effective, it can be mitigated, but the whole power system is all connected, and so if we want to change to more-efficient renewables—wind, solar—if the generation system hasn’t been damaged, then we can have an exclusion. So we will need changes in the language to permit that. Rossello: Yes. We are, we recognize what the limitations of FEMA funding are within this, so we’re asking for additional funding so that we can get that flexibility as well and actually rebuild better. I mean, again, you can discuss whether it’s a good idea or not on the context of the merit of the energy and the structure, but it is really just a bad idea to rebuild a system that is frail over again, spend good taxpayer money in that, because you’re going to have to do it once over again. 1:44:34 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Based on your estimates, how much are you asking Congress to fund in terms of the kind of modernization, resilience, etc. that you would like to see in Puerto Rico? Governor Ricardo Rossello: Yeah. It’s about $17 billion in damage estimates. Hirono: One year? Rossello: No. For the bulk of the process. Hirono: Seventeen billion dollars? Rossello: Yes, that’s right. Hirono: And is it your—well, I know that you hope that Congress will authorize that, and do you think that authorization or the funding to occur in one year, or is it over a period of time? Rossello: No, it would be over a period of time, of course. 1:53:28 Senator Bernie Sanders (VT): Puerto Rico is struggling with an unsustainable 75-billion-dollar debt and $49 billion in pension obligations. More than one-third of that debt is held by Wall Street vulture funds that are getting interest rates of up to 34% on tax-exempt bonds they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. Is that correct, Governor? Governor Ricardo Rossello: Yep. Hearing: ; House Natural Resources Committee, November 7, 2017. Witnesses: - Natalie Jaresko - Executive Director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico - Angel Perez Otero - Mayor of Guanynabo, Puerto Rico - Noel Zamot - Revitalization Coordinator of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico 22:30 Natalie Jaresko: As the committee is aware, the board has recently named Noel Zamot as chief transformation officer of PREPA, with all the powers of a CEO and reporting to the board. We believe this is absolutely essential both to restoring service as soon as possible and to creating a sustainable, efficient, resilient, and fiscally accountable power system for the island. While the board is confident, the PROMESA, coupled with fundamental aspects of bankruptcy law, gives us the power and responsibility to do as we have done. Some parties are vigorously contesting our authority in proceedings before the Title III judge. To avoid uncertainty and lengthy delays and litigation, congressional reaffirmation of our exercise of our authority is welcome. 23:08 Natalie Jaresko: We have also implemented a contract-review policy as a tool to ensure transparency throughout the government, for the benefit of the people of Puerto Rico and all stakeholders. The policy applies to all contracts in which the commonwealth or any covered instrumentality is a counterparty, including those with the federal government, state governments, and private parties. The policy provides that all contracts of 10 million or more must be submitted to the board for its approval before execution. In addition, the board retains the authority to adopt other methods, such as random sampling of contracts below that 10-million-dollar threshold, to assure that they promote market competition and are not inconsistent with the approved fiscal plan. 26:48 Noel Zamot: I will retain key leaders on my staff to enable speed and effectiveness in our decision-making. I’d like to highlight two key roles. The chief operations officer will be responsible for day-to-day operations of the utility. This will initially be a senior leader from within PREPA but will be augmented by an industry executive identified in conjunction with input that we are receiving from the Edison Electric Institute. 27:41 Noel Zamot: I’ve also identified key executives to serve on a board of advisors. These are CEOs from public and private utilities who have generously volunteered to bring their considerable expertise to help with this task. I will also rely on an internal group of world-class experts from multi-national utilities, the energy sector, academia, and more. 28:22 Noel Zamot: Puerto Rico’s energy strategy calls for 50% renewables by 2040, with a balance of natural and LP gas mix; regional grids, with generation close to demand; physical hardening and control systems to provide resiliency; and widespread distributed generation, all wrapped by an empowered and accountable energy regulator. PROMESA is clear in its guidance to attract private capital to achieve this end state. We need to do just that, not only for generation but to attract innovative capital solutions from the private sector for transmission and distribution as well. 43:42 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): Do you or the board hold a view that, relative to Title V, waiving or eliminating additional federal environmental safeguards like NEPA or regulations will accelerate the recovery in Puerto Rico? Ms. Jaresko, you and then Mr. Zamot, if you don’t mind, as well, answering the question. Natalie Jaresko: I certainly believe that further expeditious permitting is a requirement. I’m not an expert on the individual sets of permitting, but I want to underline that it’s both federal, commonwealth, and municipality permitting at all levels. It needs to be expedited for any private-sector investment to become a quick recovery. Grijalva: Okay. Mr. Zamot, do you think that’s needed? Noel Zamot: Thank you, sir. My view is that economic growth and fast-tracking projects is not inconsistent with being good stewards of the environment, and we have a very robust process within Title V and within the working group that we have set with the government to ensure that we, the residents of Puerto Rico, are very respectful of that. Grijalva: If I may, sir, let me just follow up with you. You cite the proposed trash incinerators an example of a project Title V that could come to fruition, but I see an example of why Title V, in this instance, doesn’t work. Public comments about the project are overwhelming in opposition. It’s opposed by both mayors’ groups, representing all the mayors in the island. It was stalled in part because it couldn’t get a permit to drain 2.1 million gallons from a protected wetland. Farmers and residents concerned about the effects on their health, that it could undermine recycling programs that are in place. It flooded during the hurricane. We have a before-and-after situation, that’s up on the screen. It flooded during and released some of the hundreds of tons of toxic ash that could release, in the future, toxic ash into surrounding neighborhoods. And it requires a major loan from the federal government to go forward even though it’s fully privately funded for 67 megawatts of power. Is that what we can expect in terms of Title V critical projects? Zamot: Sir, there are many voices that, obviously, in a democratic process, voice their concern with such a project, but there are equal number of voices on the positive side. We don’t look at this project in Arecibo necessarily as even a power project. It is really a waste-management project. Puerto Rico has a critical, essentially a crisis, in waste management and landfill use that has been identified by the EPA, and that is why the EPA has actually been supportive of this program. 47:30 Representative Doug Lamborn (CO): Is it safe in assuming that pretty much 100% of the electricity generated in Puerto Rico today is from burning fuel oil? Noel Zamot: Sir, I would say it’s 96%. There is approximately 4% that is renewables in Puerto Rico right now. Lamborn: And as we know, fuel oil is very expensive and very dirty. Zamot: That is correct, sir. Lamborn: So, I like the plan. I think you said by 2040, 50% renewables, 50% natural gas through liquefied form. Zamot: That’s correct. Lamborn: Have you identified investors who are willing to make that huge investment in a LNG terminal? Zamot: Sir, there are a number of investors that are actually very bullish on Puerto Rico’s long-term prospects, and we and the board and specifically in my role as revitalization coordinator, we receive a lot of proposals, a lot of questions about how people can bring innovative capital solutions using private capital to bear, to benefit, the reconstruction of the grid and the people of Puerto Rico. Lamborn: Well, I would really urge you to keep pushing in that direction because I don’t think nuclear or coal is going to be a solution. Renewables are great, but to provide that much electricity in that short of time is unrealistic. So I welcome the discussion about LNG. 50:30 Representative Doug Lamborn (CO): And the last thing I want to ask you about is that 800-million-dollar project, and the ranking member referred to it: burning waste to create electricity. Is my understanding that that would be privately funded and would not need government subsidies of any kind? Noel Zamot: That is correct, sir. It’s entirely privately funded. Some of the capital structure includes some federal loans, but there is no money from Puerto Rico, and it relies on relatively new technology that is respectful of emissions. 51:53 Representative Grace Napolitano (CA): The incinerator would be built in an area in Arecibo previously contaminated by a battery recycling plant, and it was flooded during the hurricanes. Has the area been tested for lead, arsenic, and other contaminants? Noel Zamot: Ma’am, I do not have the specific details on what work has been accomplished to date, but we do know that the company that is planning that work has done extensive mitigation pre-work— Napolitano: How long has the plant been there, that it hasn’t been tested? Zamot: Ma’am, I do not have that information. Napolitano: Would you mind sending the answers to this committee— Zamot: Yes, ma’am. Napolitano: —so we can understand that. And how does the Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC plan to prevent their landfill from being flooded by future hurricanes? Zamot: Ma’am, could you repeat the question? Napolitano: How do you prevent landfill from being flooded by hurricanes? Zamot: That is an engineering question that I’m not prepared to answer right now. I would imagine that that has been looked at in the permitting that the company has received to date. Napolitano: Okay. When and—how and when does the company plan to bury the toxic ashes generated by the incinerator? Zamot: That is being currently discussed with the current Puerto Rico administration. Napolitano: Is, let’s see, how many Puerto Rico municipalities refuse to send trash to the plant incinerator? Zamot: I think the answer to that is many, because that represents a threat to current waste management in Puerto Rico, which the EPA has identified as a critical need to address. 1:19:36 Representative Steve Pearce (NM): Now, one of the problems that I see, just as a former business owner taking a look at it, one of the reasons that residents had to pay such a high rate is that certain entities didn’t have to pay for the electrical power. One of those would be the hotels. So are they still exempt from paying their power? Natalie Jaresko: Each of the economic development plans that Puerto Rico implemented over the years had individual tax agreements— Pearce: I’m just asking about the hotels. Jaresko: —between businesses and energy. Pearce: Are they still exempt? Are they not exempt? Jaresko: Some of them are, yes. Pearce: Some of them are exempt. Jaresko: That’s correct. Pearce: Now, also, cities were also exempt, and so city governments were exempt prior, according to what I’ve read. Noel Zamot: That’s correct, sir. 1:38:50 Natalie Jaresko: The board certainly considers privatization as one of the options going forward. There’s a question that remains open to see whether it’s privatization of the entire power sector, meaning generation transmission and distribution or some select part, or whether it just means bringing in private sector to compete and bring down the cost and bring up the efficiency of electricity. We’re looking at all of those as we define this fiscal plan for PREPA. 1:49:50 Representative Raul Labrador (ID): You stated that prior to the hurricane that the board possessed the authority to execute its mission and deliver on the underlying mandate Congress set with PROMESA, but with the devastation, you allude that those tools may be inadequate. So please tell us why does the board currently have—does the board currently have the tools necessary to facilitate efficient and effective recovery? Natalie Jaresko: I will try to be clear. I believe the board has the tools, that PROMESA gives us the tools. That said, when there are disagreements, the use of those tools ends up in costly and time-consuming litigation. Today more than ever that time and that cost is not helping Puerto Rico, so we asked for clarity of the tools that we have—whether it is in the appointment of a CTO through Title III, whether it is the implementation of our contract-policy review, or whether or not it is the implementation of the fiscal plans in full when certified. Labrador: So, what else do you need to be successful? Is there anything else that we need to give you to be successful? Jaresko: I think we would appreciate a legislative affirmation of those and/or conditioning of appropriations on those powers as you see fit. 2:11:11 Representative Garret Graves (LA): The governor recently proposed a law to address emergencies and disasters. Part of that law would allow, basically, eliminating or waiving sales tax in Puerto Rico. Are you aware—is that proposal on your radar screen? Were you consulted? Natalie Jaresko: No, we were not consulted. And I am aware that there has been a problem because of the lack of electricity and the collections of the sales-and-use tax. However, as electricity comes back, the collection process should also return. Graves: So you were not consulted. You were not aware on the front end. If ultimately the governor certifies that this is in compliance with the fiscal plan and you determine otherwise, what happens then? How does that play out? Jaresko: Well, I would hope that they would consult prior to putting that policy in place because it is something that can have a direct adverse fiscal effect, and it could be not in compliance with the fiscal plan. If they certify that it is, as you described, then we have a situation which could potentially, again, lead to difference of opinion in terms of what our role is in PROMESA. And it is very difficult for us, once it is certified by the government as being in compliance, if we disagree, to reverse that. Graves: I’m sorry. Say that last part again. Jaresko: If the government certifies that the executive order or law is in compliance with the fiscal plan, it is difficult for us to reverse that. Graves: Your hands are effectively tied. Do you think Congress should revisit that in terms of something that you believe causes economic harm or undermines the objectives of the fiscal plan but you don’t have the ability to actually help reset that? Jaresko: I think it should be very clear that the intent of PROMESA was for us to be able to stop things that were having an adverse effect on the fiscal plan, yes. 2:26:37 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): Arecibo incinerator, Mr. Zamot, I would hope you would talk to Secretary Vilsack because you seem to have a different perspective than he does, since the loan from the USDA is through the Rural Utilities Services. In other words, the money is not in order to do something with waste management; the money is to create energy. But you said to us earlier—and correct me if I’m wrong, if I misunderstood—that the purpose is one of for garbage, basically, disposal, and not for energy. How do you see it? Is it garbage disposal or energy? What is the primary purpose of it? Noel Zamot: Sir, the government of Puerto Rico has a letter out, and they consider that plan in Arecibo to be both a provider of energy— Gutierrez: But when you said primarily, you said primarily. Zamot: The plan at Arecibo, where about 2% of the aggregate electrical demand— Gutierrez: Okay. So primarily, I heard you—and we can go back to the record—you said that it was primarily; yet, they are asking for a loan between half a million and 750 million dollars. And let me just assure you and everybody here: Given the fact that the government of Puerto Rico already owes over $2 billion, unless Mrs. Jaresko’s going to use some of her skills to eliminate that debt, I don’t see how we’re going to do that. And in the last 25 seconds, because I want to focus on this issue with you, do you believe that the control board has such power that you do not have to take into consideration the concerns of the duly elected mayors of the cities that will be affected by the incinerator? Or do you feel you need to consult with them before you make a decision going forward? Zamot: Sir, in 9 seconds, the statute provides for a public comment period that in conclusion— Gutierrez: So, you don’t believe. You do believe that you’re supreme. You’re kind of a dictator over everything. 2:32:05 Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez (PR): You say that the board has the power to name a chief transformation officer to take over the management of PREPA, and at the same time, I know the state government, state legislator, the governor is against that. And you filed a motion in the court to allow that to happen. Do you have the power or you don’t have the power to actually name the coordinator board? Natalie Jaresko: Thank you. We believe we do have that power, and that’s why we filed that petition in court. We believe we have that power under Title III as any representative of a debtor, and the board is named the representative of the debtor, in the law in PROMESA, to name a chief restructuring officer, a receiver, a chief transformation officer, as we call it. Gonzalez: So, sorry to interrupt you, but then you don’t need any change in the PROMESA law? You don’t need any power to make that happen, because that’s the question this committee is doing. What do you need in terms of helping the people of Puerto Rico to recover power? I think that’s the main question. If we were a state, we will not have you. If we were a state, we will have full funding in all federal programs, and now that’s a problem all territories got. Jaresko: The board believes that in appointing this CTO will help us move more quickly to restoration of power. That is the only reason the board took this position, and they took it at this time. 2:43:30 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): Mayor, thank you very much for being here with us. Could you tell us your annual salary? Mayor Angel Perez Otero: My? Gutierrez: Yes. *Otero: 96,000. Gutierrez: $96,000. Mr. Zamot? What’s your annual salary? Noel Zamot: That’s a matter of— Gutierrez: I’m sorry? Zamot: Sir, that’s a matter of public record. Gutierrez: How much is it? Zamot: I think it’s in the record, sir. Gutierrez: Just—can’t you tell us how much it is? You know how much you’re getting paid. Why are you so reluctant to give us—this is a committee. Just want to know how much you’re getting paid. The mayor was very forthcoming. Zamot: The board found a competition competitive compensation of $315,000. 2:55:30 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): So, I’ll ask Mrs. Jaresko—I didn’t get to ask you—what’s your annual salary? Natalie Jaresko: $625,000. Gutierrez: $625,000. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD169: Fiscal Recklessness

10 mars 2018 | 146 min

Another shutdown, another dingleberry-filled temporary funding law! In this episode, learn about the new law that reopened the government after the 6 hour shutdown by providing funding until March 23 and be one of the few people in the country who will know about the random goodies that hitchhiked their way into law. Miranda Hannah joins Jen for the thank yous. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Stan Collender, Forbes, March 4, 2018. Report: by Joe Goud, Defense News, February 22, 2018. Report: by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Lexology, February 22, 2018. Article: by Emma Foehringer Merchant, Green Tech Media, February 22, 2018. Article: by Deirdre Shesgreen, USA Today, February 19, 2018. Report: by Lizzy Francis, Fatherly, February 13, 2018. Report: , World Nuclear News, February 12, 2018. Report: by Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, February 9, 2018. Report: by Paige Winfield Cunningham, The Washington Post, February 9, 2018. Article: by Catherine Rampell, The Washington Post, December 20, 2017. Report: by Leslie Small, Fierce Healthcare, November 22, 2017. Report: by Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill, November 2, 2017. Article: by John Bulliner, Medicare.com, January 24, 2017. Article: by Ryan Grim, Huffpost, December 6, 2016. Article: by Ryan Grim, Jason Cherkis, and Laura Barron-Lopez, Huffington Post, December 2, 2016. Article: by Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica, May 20, 2015. Additional Viewing Hearing: , US Senate Committee on Finance, August 4, 2015. Hearing: , US Senate Committee on Finance, May 19, 2015. Bill Outline : Honoring Hometown Heroes Act : Allows the flag to be flown at half staff when a first responder dies at work. : Supplemental Appropriations, Tax Relief, and Medicaid Changes Relating to Certain Disasters and further extension of continuing appropriations : Gives $2.36 billion to the Department of Agriculture, available until the end of 2019, to pay for "expenses related to crops, trees, bushes, and vine losses" caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and other hurricanes and wildfires that took place in 2017. Companies who have crop insurance can have 85% of their losses covered by our tax money Companies who didn't buy crop insurance can have up to 65% of their losses covered by our money : Gives $14 million to Puerto Rico's food program but says the money is for infrastructure grants for infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria : Changes the law to allow livestock producers to collect payments for cows they sold at reduced prices, instead of just dead ones, and eliminates the $20 million cap on total payouts for livestock producers. : Orders the Secretary of Commerce to issue a waiver within 120 days of the which prohibit the capture of marine mammals for . It says the waiver for the projects "will remain in effect for the duration of the construction, operations and maintenance of the projects. No rule-making, permit, determination, or other condition or limitation shall be required when issuing a waiver pursuant to this section." : Gives $15 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damages caused by natural disasters $10 billion has to be spend in areas impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria Repairs made in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands "shall be conducted at full Federal expense" : Provides $1.652 billion for the "Disaster Loans Program Account" but $618 million of that can be spend on "administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loan program" : Adds $23.5 billion to FEMA's "Disaster Relief Fund" : Adds religious institutions to the definition of a "Private Nonprofit Facility", which makes them eligible to receive tax money for disaster aid services. : Says the Federal government will pay 90% of the costs for 2017 wildfire disasters. : Provides $1.374 billion for the Federal highway "Emergency Relief Program", with the Federal government paying 100% of the costs for Puerto Rico : Provides $28 billion in disaster relief for housing and infrastructure. $11 billion must be spent on areas hit by Hurricane Maria $2 billion of that will be spent on upgrades to electrical power systems : Allows victims of wildfires in CA to borrow up to $100,000 from their own retirement accounts and pay it back within 3 years. : Allows companies that had to close due to wildfires to get a credit for up to 40% of their employees' wages, up to $6,000 each. : Suspends limitations on charitable contributions made before December 31, 2018 for relief efforts in the California wildfire disaster area : Provides an extra $3.6 billion for Puerto Rico and $106 million for the US Virgin Islands for Medicaid Puerto Rico can get $1.2 billion more if Puerto Rico implements a new process for transmitting data to the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) and if it creates a Medicaid fraud control unit : Extends 2017 government funding levels until March 23, 2018. : Budgetary and other matters : Sets the budget limits for 2018 and 2019 2018 $629 billion for defense $579 billion for non-defense 2019 $647 billion for defense $597 billion for non-defense : Zeroes out the balances on the PAYGO budget scorecard. : Requires the Secretary of Energy to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve every year from 2022-2025 and 35 million per year in 2026 and 2027. Lowers the amount of oil we must have in reserves from 450 million barrels to 350 million barrels : Suspends the debt ceiling entirely until March 1, 2019. : Revenue Measures , , and : Extend 31 tax credits : Extends until 2021 but then phases out tax credits for residential solar electricity, solar water heaters, small wind energy turbines, and geothermal heat pumps. : Extends until 2022 and then phases out a 30% credit for fiber-optic solar, fuel cell, and small wind energy property, eliminating the credits entirely by 2024. : Extends and expands tax credits for nuclear power facilities : Extends an existing tax credit for carbon sequestration technology for 6 years and changes it so that for each ton of carbon captured and eliminates a cap on how many tons were eligible for credits (it was 75 million tons). : Health and Human Services Extenders : Extends the authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2027 and adds $48 million per year for 2023-2027 for enrollment assistance. : Extends Medicare programs : Authorizes voluntary telehealth appointments for people receiving at-home dialysis treatments for end state renal disease, as long as they see a doctor in-person every 3 months. : Expands a test program, which began in 2015 with 7 States, to all States. The program allows privately administered Medicare Advantage plans flexibility to design custom insurance plans for people with certain chronic diseases. : Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans will be able to offer extra benefits for people with chronic health conditions and uniformity requirements will be waived for those plans. : Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans can include "telehealth benefits" : Starting sometime in 2019, some Medicare administrators will be allowed to offer incentives up to $20 to encourage seniors to encourage them to come to appointments with their primary care doctors. The money collected will not be considered taxable income. The Secretary of Health and Human Services can cancel this program at any time for any reason. : Increased criminal and civil fines for Federal health care program fraud : Updates the abstinence education program and increases funding from $50 million to $75 million in 2018 and 2019 : Creates a program funding State efforts to provide mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and parenting counseling to parents in order to prevent their children from being placed in foster care. : Allows foster care payments to be given to licensed residential treatment facilities if the facility welcomes the child to live with its parent as long as the facility provides parenting classes and family counseling. : Requires States to require every child-care institution to run fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases on any adult working in their facility. : Funds Community Health Centers with $3.8 billion for 2018 and $4 billion for 2019 : Repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board : Offsets : Requires Medicaid to count lottery winnings as income when determining Medicaid eligibility : Rescinds $985 million from the , which is meant to improve oversight of Medicaid contracts and contractors. : Reduces pay for outpatient physical and occupational therapists for care their assistant's provide to 85 percent of the rate that would have otherwise been paid. : Increases the percentage that people who make over $500,000 per year pay for Medicare premiums from 80% to 85%. : Empty's the Medicare Improvement Fund by eliminating all $220 million. : Accelerates the closing of the prescription drug "donut hole" for seniors by moving up a decrease in out of pocket prescription costs to 25% by one year - it's now 2019 - and by increasing the percentage that drug manufacturers must discount their drugs from 50% to 70%. : Cuts $1.35 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund over the next 10 years. : Budgetary Effects Exempts the entire law from the PAYGO scorecard and the Senate PAYGO scorecards. Resources Bill Overview: Bill Summary: Bill Scorecard: Budget Notice: Committee on Finance Report: Government Debt Info: Government Debt Info: Louisiana State Government: Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Senate Remarks: S, C-SPAN, February 8, 2018. Senator Rand Paul: The bill is nearly 700 pages. It was given to us at midnight last night, and I would venture to say no one has read the bill. No one can thoroughly digest a 700-page bill overnight, and I do think that it does things that we really, really ought to talk about and how we should pay for them. Senator Rand Paul: So the reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot. I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, how come you were against President Obama’s deficits, and then how come you’re for Republican deficits? Isn’t that the very definition of intellectual dishonesty? If you were against President Obama’s deficits and now you’re for the Republican deficits, isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy? People need to be made aware. Your senators need to answer people from home, and they need to answer this debate. We should have a full-throated debate. Senator Rand Paul: You realize that this is the secret of Washington. The dirty little secret is the Republicans are loudly clamoring for more military spending, but they can’t get it unless they give the Democrats welfare spending, so they raise all the spending. It’s a compromise in the wrong direction. We should be compromising in the direction of going toward spending only what comes in. And yet this goes on and on and on. Senator Rand Paul: For the umpteenth time, Congress is going to exceed their budget caps. We had something passed back in 2010. It was called PAYGO. It was supposed to say, if you’re going to pay new money, you had to go find an offset somewhere else. You could only pay as you go. It was sort of like a family would think about it. If you’re going to spend some more money, you either got to raise your income or you’ve got to save some money. You know how many times we’ve evaded it since 2010? Thirty-some-odd times. Senator Rand Paul: So the bill’s going to exceed the budget caps by $296 billion. And that’s not counting the money they don’t count, all right? So these people are really, really clever. Imagine them running their fingers together and saying, how can we hide stuff from the American people? How can we evade the spending caps so we can be even more irresponsible than we appear? So, 296 is the official number; about $300 billion over two years that will be in excess of the budget caps. But there’s another $160 billion that’s stuck into something called an overseas contingency fund. The budget caps don’t apply there. So we’re $300 billion for two years over the budget caps; then we’re another 160 billion over the caps—they just don’t count it. They act as if it doesn’t matter; we’re just not going to count it. Senator Rand Paul: The spending bill’s 700 pages, and there will be no amendments. The debate, although it’s somewhat inside baseball that we’re having here, is over me having a 15-minute debate, and they say, woe is me; if you get one, everybody’ll want an amendment. Well, guess what? That would be called debate. That would be called an open process. That would be called concern for your country—enough to take a few minutes. And they’re like, but it’s Thursday, and we like to be on vacation on Fridays. And so they clamor. But we’ve been sitting around all day. It’s not like we’ve had 100 amendments today, we’re all worn out, we can’t do one more. We’re going to have zero amendments—zero, goose egg, no amendments. Senator Rand Paul: So over the past 40 years, four times have we actually done the right thing—passed 12 individual appropriation bills, bundled them together, have a budget, and try to do the right thing. You know, there’s no guarantee that everybody’ll be wise in their spending, but it’s got to be better; it can’t be worse. What do we do instead? It’s called a continuing resolution. We glom all the bills together in one bill, like we’ve done tonight—Republicans and Democrats clasping hands—and nobody’s going to look at it. Nobody’s going to reform the spending. As a consequence, wasteful spending is riddled throughout your government. Only four times in 40 years have we done the appropriation process the way we’re supposed to. Senator Rand Paul: The last thing I’ll get to is something called the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is something that has been a limitation on how much we spend, and we have to vote on it, and it’s an unpleasant vote. And so they try to either do it for a long period of time or try to stretch it beyond elections. So this bill, the 700-page bill that no one read, that will continue all the spending and will not reform your government and is irresponsible—the one we will pass later tonight—that 700-page bill also allows the debt ceiling to go up. Historically, we would let the debt ceiling—our borrowing limit—we would let it go up a dollar amount. We’d say, well, we’ve got to borrow money, and it looks like we’re going to need a trillion dollars. But you know the way they do it now? It’s like everything else around here: We bend, break the rules, and then somehow there’s a little bit of deviousness to it. The debt ceiling will go up in an unspecified amount. So as much as you can borrow between now and November, go for it. So there is no limitation. The debt ceiling becomes not a limitation at all. Senator Rand Paul: And the media doesn’t even get it. The media does you such a disservice. They can’t even understand what’s going on sometimes. They’re like, bipartisanship has broken out. Hallelujah! Republicans and Democrats are getting along. And in reality, they should be telling you, look for your wallet; check your pants to make sure they haven’t taken your wallet, because when both parties are happy and both parties are getting together and doing stuff, guess what? They were usually looting the Treasury. And that’s what this bill does. It’s going to loot the Treasury. It spends money we don’t have. We will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. Press Briefing: , C-Span, June 9, 2009. Community Suggestions Video: Video: See more community suggestions . Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD168: Nuclear Desperation

25 februari 2018 | 142 min

Cold War: Part Duex In early February, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva testified to Congress about two recently released war strategy documents: The National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review. In this episode, hear some of the most powerful people in the world discuss their plans to reboot the Cold War, including an extremely expensive plan, which has already begun, to replace the United States entire nuclear weapons arsenal. Executive Producer: Stephen McMahan Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan, The Washington Post, February 7, 2018. Report: by Kinling Lo, South China Morning Post, January 20, 2018, Report: by Ralph Vartabedian, W.J. Hennigan, and Samantha Masunaga, The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2017. Article: by Thom Patterson, CNN Money, June 19, 2017. Article: by Patrick Tucker, Defense One, May 28, 2017. Report: by Ivana Kottasova, CNN Money, April 24, 2017. Article: by Alex Lockie, Business Insider, January 12, 2017. Article: by Dan Froomkin, The Intercept, February 12, 2016. Review: by Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Washington Post, September 4, 2014. Resources Congressional Budget Office: Congressional Research Service: Defense.gov: Indictment: Media.defense.gov: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Book: Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , C-SPAN, House Armed Services Committee, February 6, 2018. Witnesses James Mattis - Secretary of the Department of Defense General Paul Silva - Vice Chair of the Joints Chiefs of Staff 12:25 Defense Secretary James Mattis: To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harm’s way, in effect, signing a blank check payable to the American people with their lives. They do so despite Congress’ abrogation of its constitutional responsibility to provide sufficient stable funding. Our military have been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1,000 days during the past decade. These men and women hold the line for America while lacking this most fundamental congressional support: a predictable budget. Congress mandated—rightfully mandated—this National Defense Strategy—the first one in a decade—and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as I testify before you this morning we are again on the verge of a government shutdown, or, at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained, predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time because no strategy can survive, as you pointed out, Chairman, without the funding necessary to resource it. 19:15 Defense Secretary James Mattis: Our second line of effort is to strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach to security and prosperity from the Greatest Generation, and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies who carry their fair share is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in World War II, Americans have carried a disproportionate share of the global-defense burden while others recovered. Today the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up, as demonstrated by more than 70 nations and international organizations participating in the Defeat ISIS campaign and again in the 40-some nations standing shoulder to shoulder in NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Most NATO allies are also increasing their defense budgets, giving credence to the value of democracies standing together. 24:33 Defense Secretary James Mattis: As Senator McCain said last week, since the end of the Cold War, we have let our nuclear capabilities atrophy under the false belief that the era of great power competition was over. As the new National Defense Strategy rightfully acknowledges, we now face the renewed threat of competition from Russia and China, and we cannot ignore their investments in nuclear weapons in addition to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the nuclear triad—comprised of silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft, and nuclear submarines—is the most strategically sound means of ensuring nuclear deterrence. To remain effective, however, we must recapitalize our Cold War legacy nuclear-deterrence forces, continuing a modernization program initiated during the previous administration. 27:05 Defense Secretary James Mattis: We need Congress to lift the defense spending caps and support the budget for our military of 700 billion for this fiscal year and 716 billion for next fiscal year. Let me be clear: as hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act’s defense spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The Budget Control Act was purposely designed to be so injurious that it would force Congress to pass necessary budgets. It was never intended to be the solution. 34:50 General Paul Selva: Two supplemental capabilities recommended in the Nuclear Posture Review—the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and a modification of a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads—would enhance deterrence by ensuring that no adversary under any set of circumstances can perceive an advantage through the use of a limited nuclear escalation or other strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities will not lower the threshold at which the U.S. would employ nuclear weapons; rather, it will raise the nuclear threshold for potential adversaries, making the use of nuclear weapons less likely. 35:45 General Paul Selva: It is important to note that the National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review both make the assumption that the military will receive timely, predictable, and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As General Mattis has emphasized, we in uniform appreciate the support of this committee and the Congress, and we trust that the Congress will provide the funding needed to turn these strategies into reality. 1:03:05 Representative Joe Wilson (SC): Secretary Mattis, your Nuclear Posture Review, NPR, recommends that U.S. develop two supplemental nuclear capabilities: first, a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, SLBM; and second, a sea-launched cruise missile. Why are these needed for deterrence and assurance? And following on that, some are arguing that they lower the threshold for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons. Do you believe that the addition of these capabilities to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is an increase or decrease the likelihood of a nuclear war? And another angle: why should we need a low-yield SLBM when we already have a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb? Are these capabilities redundant? Defense Secretary James Mattis: Congressman, I don’t believe it lowers the threshold at all. What it does, it makes very clear that we have a deterrent. If the Russians choose to carry out what some of their doctrine people have promoted, their political leaders have promoted, which would be to employ a low-yield nuclear weapon in a conventional fight in order to escalate to de-escalate; in other words, to escalate to victory and then de-escalate. We want to make certain they recognize that we can respond in kind. We don’t have to go with a high-yield weapon; thus, the deterrent effort stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold to use nuclear weapons. On the sea-launched cruise missile, as you know, we have an ongoing issue with Russia’s violation of the INF. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with, that we want Russia back into compliance. We do not want to forgo the INF, but at the same time, we have options if Russia continues to go down this path. Discussion: , C-SPAN, Senate Armed Services Committee, January 25, 2018. Witnesses: Henry Kissinger National Security Advisor & Secretary of State in Nixon & Ford Administrations George Shultz Secretary of State in Reagan Administration Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State in the first term of the George W. Bush administration 12:45 Henry Kissinger: The international situation facing the United States is unprecedented. What is occurring is more than a coincidence of individual crises. Rather, it is a systemic failure of world order, which is gathering momentum and which has led to an erosion of the international system rather than its consolidation, a rejection of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutual trade benefits without coercion, which are the hallmark of the existing system are all under some kind of strain. Compounding this dynamism is the pace of technological development, whose extraordinary progress threatens to outstrip our strategic and moral imagination and makes the strategic equation tenuous unless major efforts are made to sustain it. 19:45 Henry Kissinger: There is no doubt that the military capacity of China, as well as its economic capacity, is growing, and there have been challenges from Russia which have to be met, especially in Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. And this raises these fundamental questions: What is the strategic relationship between these countries vis-a-vis the prospect of peace? Is their strength comparable enough to induce restraint? Are their values compatible enough to encourage an agreed legitimacy? These are the challenges that we face. The balance of power must be maintained, but it is also necessary to attempt a strategic dialogue that prevents the balance of power from having to be tested. This is the key issue in our relationship. 25:10 George Shultz: And I take the occasion to particularly underline one of the things that Henry brought out in his testimony, that is the concern we must have about nuclear proliferation. As you remember in the Reagan period, we worked hard. President Reagan thought nuclear weapons were immoral, and we worked hard to get them reduced. And we had quite a lot of success. And in those days, people seemed to have an appreciation of what would be the result of a nuclear weapon if ever used. I fear people have lost that sense of dread. And now we see everything going in the other direction, nuclear proliferation. The more countries have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is one’s going to go off somewhere, and the more fissile materials lying around—anybody who gets fissile material can make a weapon fairly easily. So this is a major problem. It can blow up the world. So I think we have to get at it. And the right way to start is what Henry said, is somehow to be able to have a different kind of relationship with Russia. After all, Russia and the United States have the bulk of all the weapons. 31:20 George Shultz: First, let me talk about the economy. What is happening as a result of these forces is de-globalization. This is already happening. This is not something for the future. The reason is that it’s becoming more and more possible to produce the things you want close to where you are. So the advantages of low labor costs are disappearing. And the more you produce things near where you are, the less you need shipping, and it has a big impact on energy, and it has a huge impact on the countries that are providing low-cost labor and a huge impact on places like ourselves which will wind up being able to produce these things near where we are. It’s a revolution. And a revolution in the economy has all sorts of security implications that need to be thought about. But this is a very big deal. 33:30 George Shultz: Robotics, 3-D printing, and artificial intelligence are driving manufacturers to reconsider not only how and what they make but where they make it. The world is on the very front end of a big shift from labor to automation. Robot sales are expected to reach $400,000 annually in 2018. This estimate does not account for the newly developed cobots, that is, collaborative robots. They assist human workers and, thus, dramatically increase human productivity. There are other things about all this that I won’t go into which underline it, but the new technologies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States. The United States has lost manufacturing jobs every year from 1998 to 2009, a total of 8 million jobs. Over the last 6 years, it regained about a million of them. With the cost of living no longer a significant advantage, it makes little sense to manufacture components in Southeast Asia, assemble them in China, and then ship them to the rest of the world when the same item can either be manufactured by robots or printed where it will be used. So this is a huge revolution taking place. It also underlines the enhanced ability to protect your intellectual property because you don’t have to ship it around. 35:35 George Shultz: You want to look at the dramatic improvements in nano-energetics, artificial intelligence, drones, and 3-D printing. They’re producing a revolution of small, smart, and cheap weapons that will redefine the battlefield. Open-source literature says nano-aluminum created ultra high burn rates which give nano-explosives four to ten times the power of TNT. The obvious result, small platforms will carry a very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones. And drones can be manufactured easily, and you can have a great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm armed with lethal equipment. Any fixed target is a real target. So an airfield where our Air Force stores planes is a very vulnerable target. A ship at anchor is a vulnerable target. So you’ve got to think about that in terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone—talking about getting a drone to the area of where its target is, but that sure could hit a specific target. At that point, the optical systems guided by artificial intelligence could use on-board, multi-spectral imaging to find a target and guide the weapons. It is exactly that autonomy that makes the technologic convergence a threat today. Because such drones will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will not be vulnerable to jamming. Not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platforms will also be able to operate in very large numbers. 38:48 George Shultz: I think there’s a great lesson here for what we do in NATO to contain Russia because you can deploy these things in boxes so you don’t even know what they are and on trucks and train people to unload quickly and fire. So it’s a huge deterrent capability that is available, and it’s inexpensive enough so that we can expect our allies to pitch in and get them for themselves. 40:10 George Shultz: The creative use of swarms of autonomous drones to augment current forces would strongly and relatively cheaply reinforce NATO, as I said, that deterrence. If NATO assists frontline states in fielding large numbers of inexpensive autonomous drones that are pre-packaged in standard 20-foot containers, the weapons can be stored in sites across the countries under the control of reserve forces. If the weapons are pre-packaged and stored, the national forces can quickly deploy the weapons to delay a Russian advance. So what’s happening is you have small, cheap, and highly lethal replacing large, expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity, and it is massively important to take it into account in anything that you are thinking about doing. 54:10 George Shultz: Well, I read what I guess was an early version—somehow it was sent to me—of the national-security strategy. And I liked the beginning of it because it talked about our commitment to getting rid of nuclear weapons. But as you read on, it almost sounded a little bit as though there might be this or that occasion where we would use nuclear weapons. And this notion of using them that is spreading around is deeply disturbing to me. Video: , March 6, 2011. Video: , Sky News, October 20, 2006. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE

11 februari 2018 | 102 min

We’re doing it live! In this episode, recorded in front of a live audience at Podfest in Orlando, Florida, learn about the concerning permissions granted to the war departments in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act which are designed to antagonize Russia. Also, a special guest, Ryan DeLisle, joins Jen on her hotel patio to chat and say thank you to the listeners who keep this podcast in existence. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Book Recommendation by Thomas P.M. Barnett Bills H.R. 2810: 2018 NDAA: for highlights and links to provisions in the 2018 NDAA Additional Reading Report: , RT.com, February 3, 2018. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, January 29, 2018. Article: by Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View, January 25, 2018. Report: by Reuters Staff, Reuters, December 22, 2017. Report: by Matthias Gebauer, Christoph Schult, and Klaus Wiegrefe, Spiegel Online, December 8, 2017. Article: by Dan Lamothe, The Washington Post, December 6, 2017. Article: for Ukraine and Europe, Front News, December 1, 2017. Report: by Michael Birnbaum and David Filipov, The Washington Post, September 23, 2017. Video: , CBS News, September 18, 2017. Article: by David Filipov, The Washington Post, September 9, 2017. Article: by Oksana Kobzeva and Alissa de Carbonnel, Reuters, August 3, 2017. Article: by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The Washington Post, December 6, 2016. Article: by Julian Pecquet, Al-Monitor, December 2, 2016. Report: by U.S. EIA: Today in Energy, The Energy Collective, March 15, 2014. Article: , BBC, February 7, 2014. Report: by Adam Taylor, Business Insider, December 16, 2013. Press Release: , International Monetary Fund, October 31, 2013. Timeline: by Haley Bissegger, The Hill, September 15, 2013. Resources Gazprom: Gazprom: Nord Stream 2: US Pacific Command: Sound Clip Sources Remarks by Secretary of State: , U.S. Department of State, January 17, 2018. Discussion: ; Council on Foreign Affairs; January 23, 2018. Speakers: Richard Haass: President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden: former Vice President of the United States 00:06:15 Joe Biden: they cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin’s judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest. 00:20:00 Biden: They’re in a situation where they’re an oil-based economy. You have Gazprom going from a market value of something like $350 billion to $50 billion in the last 10 years. What do you do if you are a democratic leader of Russia? What do you do? How do you provide jobs for your people? Where do you go? How do you build that country, unless you engage the West? 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there’s no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn’t be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What’s an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Hearing: ; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; October 30, 2017. 8:00 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): In his last War Powers Resolution letter to Congress, the president identified the following 19 countries where U.S. military personnel were deployed and equipped for combat: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo. Hearing: ; Oversight and Investigations Committee; October 3, 2017. 1:47:00 Joseph Pennington: I would also point out the support that we have provided to the Iraqi government in terms of getting its fiscal house in order on the economic side, the economic pressures that Iraq has been under because of the conflict, the presence of ISIS, the collapse of oil prices, the humanitarian crisis, that created an economic crisis both in Baghdad and Erbil of massive proportions. We and other G7 partners stepped forward to fill the fiscal gap. We, through a sovereign loan guarantee, a billion-dollar sovereign loan guarantee, which the Iraqis, then, followed up by borrowing in the private market that would not have been possible without our support, and getting a deal with the IMF, which provided the additional financing necessary to close that gap and keep the government on its feet during this time of tremendous challenge. Again, would not have been possible without U.S. support, and that the IMF program has been the key to starting the government on a path of significant economic reform, which they are complying with the conditions of the IMF program. Panel: ; Aspen Institute; August 4, 2017. 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We’re putting battalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic states and in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus that newspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000 tanks—I think I’ve got that number right— Unknown Speaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanks than Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to be careful that we don’t get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with Russia and not have the resources to back it up. Debate: ; U.S. House of Representatives; July 25, 2017. 39:40 Tim Ryan (OH): What’s happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not so dependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’ve also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Confirmation Hearing: ; Senate Armed Services Committee; January 12, 2017. 00:20:15 Sen. McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We’ve not only put America first, but we’ve done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. It’s the global striking power of America’s armed forces that must deter or thwart their ambitions. Too many Americans, too many Americans seem to have forgotten this in recent years. Too many have forgotten that our world order is not self-sustaining. Too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. In short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters—having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and, at times, using it. Fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that America is weak and distracted, and that has only emboldened our adversaries to challenge the current world order. 00:51:20 McCain: You are a distinguished student of history, and, as we are all aware, that following World War II, a world order was established which has held for, basically, the last 70 years. Do you believe that that world order is now under more strain than it’s ever been? Sen. Mattis: I think it’s under the biggest attack since World War II, sir, and that’s from Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea. Presidential Address: , C-SPAN, September 10, 2014. Daily Briefing: ; State Department; February 6, 2014. Jen Psaki, State Department Spokesperson 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? Phone Conversation: ; February 4, 2014. Press Conference: ; C-Span; December 19, 2013. 00:09:30 McCain: In recent months, President Putin has pulled out all the stops to coerce, intimidate, and threaten Ukraine away from Europe. Russia has blocked large amounts of Ukrainian trade, especially chocolate. It has threatened to cut off its gas supplies in the dead of winter, which it has done before. And according to Ukrainian officials we met in Kyiv, President Putin threatened President Yanukovich with far worse economic retaliation if he signed the Association Agreement with the EU. 00:16:45 McCain: If Ukraine's political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend—from holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine's long-term economic health and sustainable development. Decisions such as these are for Ukrainians to make—no one else—and if they request our assistance, we should provide it where possible. Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensable for Ukraine's future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine's economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. Presidential Address: , C-SPAN, September 10, 2013 Debate: , C-SPAN, August 29, 2013. Discussion: , C-Span, April 20, 1994. Arthur Dunkel, Director General of the UN 26:00:00: Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the sadly planned world; the sadly planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension - political tension and even worse than that." Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD166: I Spy a Shutdown

27 januari 2018 | 73 min

Register for January 19th was a big day for the 115th Congress: Part of the government ran out of funding and some spying authorities also expired. In this episode, learn about FISA reauthorization law that contained a giant loophole that will allow previously inadmissible information to be used against you in court, get all the details about the 69 hour shutdown that resulted from an attempt by the Democratic Party to … do something for the Dreamers, get enraged by the dingleberries attached to the fourth temporary funding law of this fiscal year, and discover why Jen is angry with just about everyone right now. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD165: CD098: Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills : FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 : Requires the for searching through the database that are consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The procedures must require that be kept Allows the FBI to search through the database and access the content of communications acquired via foreign surveillance for criminal investigations unrelated to national security if they get a court order. The FBI if the FBI determines "there is a reasonable belief that such contents could assist in mitigating or eliminating a threat to life or serious bodily harm." The new rules are : Information acquired via the foreign surveillance program can be used against us in court if the FBI gets a FISA court order, if the Attorney General says it is related to national security, OR the criminal proceeding crimes including: Death Kidnapping Serious bodily injury An offense against a minor Destruction of ("assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that in incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.") Cybersecurity Transnational crimes, including drug and/or human trafficking : Prohibits punishment for FBI and intelligence community contractors who report violations of law to certain authorities inside the government and Congressional committees. : Delays the repeal of authorities granted in Title VII of the FISA Amendments Act until December 31, 2023. allow the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to target people non-Americans outside the United States : Increases the penalty for unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from a fine and/or 1 year in prison to a fine and/or 5 years in prison. : Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018; HEALTHY KIDS Act; Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 : Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 copies of the Federal Register from being printed for members of Congress unless they request it. this will end the distribution of about 1,000 copies of the 300-page Federal Register that are distributed daily for free, saving ~$1 million per year. : Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 2017 government funding levels until February 8, 2018. the ~$4 billion appropriated for missile defense in to be spent by the intelligence agencies on things that were NOT specifically authorized by Congress : HEALTHY KIDS Act Full Title: "Helping Ensure Access for Little Ones, Toddlers, and Hopeful Youth by Keeping Insurance Delivery Stable Act" the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2023 at the following rates: 2018: $21.5 billion 2019: $22.6 billion 2020: $23.7 billion 2021: $24.8 billion 2022: $25.9 billion 2023: $5.7 billion + = $25.9 billion The 2018 funds that were already appropriated . : Suspension of certain health-related taxes : Delays implementation of the medical device tax until 2020 : Delays implementation of the tax on high premium insurance plans until 2022 : Suspends the annual fee on health insurance companies for 2019 & 2020. : Budgetary Effects The budgetary effects of the extension of the CHIP program and the suspension of health industry taxes will not be counted in the PAYGO budget. Additional Reading Article: by Alex Emmons and Ryan Grim, The Intercept, January 22, 2018. Article: by Miriam Valverde, Polifact, January 22, 2018. Report: by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, January 22, 2018. Article: by Margot Sanger-Katz and Jim Tankersley, The New York Times, January 22, 2018. Article: by Steve Hendrix, The Washington Post, January 20, 2018. Article: by Ryan Grim, The Intercept, January 17, 2018. Article: by Shom Mazumder, The Washington Post, January 27, 2017. Resources Center for National Security Studies: Congressional Record: *Page 7: Sen. Cochran’s reason for the “blank check” provision Govtrack House Vote: Govtrack Senate Vote: Twitter Poll Who do you blame for the ? — CSPAN (@cspan) C-SPAN poll - Over 208,000 votes 45% blame Trump 41% blame Congressional D’s 14% blame Congressional R’s Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , January 22, 2018. 1:08:40 Sen. Richard Burr: The vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and I were notified when the House CR appeared that there was language in it that was different than in the past. The language in section 148 of the CR is of concern to the Intelligence Committee. Let me just read the language: Sec. 148. Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriation Act, 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–96) may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947. This language is troublesome for the committee because it would authorize the intelligence community to spend funds ‘‘notwithstanding’’ the law that requires prior authorization by the Senate Intelligence Committee or by the House Intelligence Committee. 1:11:00 Sen. Richard Burr: As a result, this language can erode the powers of the authorizing committee. Effectively,the intelligence community could ex-pend funds as it sees fit without an authorization bill in place and with no statutory direction indicating that an authorization bill for 2018 is forth-coming. 1:16:30 Sen. Mark Warner: If this exemption is granted, you could potentially have an administration—any administration—go off and take on covert activities, for example,with no ability for our committee,which spends the time and has the oversight, to say timeout or to say we actually disagree with that policy. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD165: Christmas Dingleberries

13 januari 2018 | 113 min

Right before Christmas, the government was temporarily funded for the fourth time this fiscal year, but this latest funding law came with a few surprises. In this episode, a feisty Jen outlines the law to expose a favor to the war industry, damage to the Affordable Care Act, a bad sign for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a giant loophole that paved the way for a new mountain of government debt, and more. You’ll also learn about an “uncontroversial” bill that reduces accountability for foreign fighters who abuse women and that showers literal gifts upon a secretive Drug War commission. But it’s not all bad news! There’s also a reason for hope. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD161: Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Register for Bills : Continuing Appropriations Act, Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, CHIP and Public Health Funding Extension Act, 2018 Extends 2017 funding levels until January 19, 2018 Delays the repeal of FISA warrantless spying authorities until January 19, 2018. Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriates over $3.8 billion for emergency ballistic missile equipment and research. : Missile Construction Enhancements Appropriates $200 million, available until September 30, 2022 to construct an emergency missile field in Alaska General Provisions Clarifies that the money in this law for the Department of Defense will be in addition to the money it will be appropriated for 2018. For the extra money given to the military in this law, this section creates an exception that no new projects can be started with it. Clarifies that this money is being appropriated as an emergency requirement. : Health Provisions : Public Health Extenders Appropriates $550 million for community health centers and $65 million for the for the first half of 2018 Appropriates $37.5 million for a program for type I diabetes for the first half of 2018 : Cuts [the authorization for the Prevention and Public Health Fund](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:300u-11%20edition:prelim) - 2019: Authorization decreases from $900 million to $800 million (was supposed to be $2 billion annually) - 2020 & 2021: Authorization decreases from $1 billion to $800 million - 2022: Authorization decreases from $1.5 billion to $1.25 billion. Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Appropriates $2.85 billion for the Children's Health Insurance Program through March 31, 2018, which is a cut from . : VA Choice Appropriates an additional $2.1 billion for the . Budgetary Effects The budgetary effects of the money for CHIP and VA Choice on the PAYGO scorecard will not be counted. : The effects of the tax bill (the "Reconciliation Act" authorized by ) will not be considered in the PAYGO budget. : Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017, Improvements Act : Orders a bunch of foreign policy related reports to be given to the Appropriations Committees in the House and the Senate. Changes the to remove the requirement for "swift and effective disciplinary action against" police or troops of UN countries who sexually exploit or abuse people during their peacekeeping missions. In it's place, the requirement will be that the countries will have to "appropriately hold accountable" their personnel, which is left undefined. Allows members of the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission to "solicit, accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of money, services, or property, both real and personal, for the purpose of carrying out any duty, power, or authority of the Commission." Additional Reading Article: by Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, January 10, 2018. Article: by Reps. Eliot L. Engel and Matt Salmon, Huffington Post Report: by Marcus Weisgerber, Defense One, December 22, 2017. Report: by Justin Doubleday, Inside Defense, December 21, 2017. Article: by Leon Cook, Stars and Stripes, December 13, 2017. Article: from U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs, America's Navy, December 8, 2017. Article: by Larlsa Epatko, PBS, November 28, 2017. Article: by Tim Ellis, AlaskaPublic.org, November 14, 2017. Press Release: by Matt Shuckerow, DonYoung.house.gov, November 6, 2017. Report: , U.S. Governtment Accountability Office, October 13, 2017. Article: by Sean Kimmons, Department of Defense, October 11, 2017. Article: by Patrick Knox, The Sun, September 4, 2017. News Report: by Hudson Institute, PR Newswire, June 29, 2017. Article: by David Willman, The LA Times, February 26, 2017. Press Release: , Committee on Foreign Affairs, December 10, 2016. Article: by William D. Hartung, Mother Jones, July 30, 2016. Article: by David Willman, The LA Times, July 14, 2016. Article: by David William, The LA Times, July 6, 2017. Report: by Zach Berger, Missile Defense Advocacy, June 2017. Article: by Mary Bono, USA Today, March 6, 2017. Report: , U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 17, 2016. Article: by William Bennett and John P. Walters, Boston Globe, September 9, 2015 Report: by The Associated Press, Army Times, December 16, 2014. Article: by Roger A. Mola, Airspacemag.com, April 9, 2013. Resources Budget of the U.S. Government: Department of Defense: Department of Defense: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Twitter Post @JordanUhl: Visual References Boeing Co Stock Summary Sound Clip Sources Hearing: U.S. Defense Strategy in South Asia; House Committee on Armed Services; October 3, 2017 Witnesses: - Joseph F. Dunford Jr. - James N. Mattis 57:25 James Mattis: I think the most important thing is that we get budget predictability and certainty, because without that, we cannot take the—adjust our forces and get predictability into our budgets that permits us to gain the best bang for the buck, to put it bluntly. We’re going into the ninth year with a continuing resolution. As you know, I cannot make new starts under that, even if the cyber domain or the space domain require that we do new things we’ve not had to do before to maintain our competitive edge. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD163: “Net Neutrality”

11 december 2017 | 158 min

The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called “net neutrality” regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker’s plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Additional Reading Article: by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: , CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: , Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: Bill Roll Call: FCC Resources: Mission Statement: Network Map: Publication: Publication: Report: Report: Support Page: Visual References Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: ; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary’s intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it’s dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: ; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift’s question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we’ve taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we’re making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we’re looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that’s been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we’re engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We’re tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it’s a balance between free speech and what’s real and what’s false. And we often see there’s a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we’re working on the behavior. That’s where we’re focused right now. We’ve had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We’re trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we’re making great strides there, but it’s a definite balance. We also have work we’ve done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who’s paying for an ad, what else they’re running, what they’re targeting, what they’re after—especially around electioneering ads, who’s paying for it, how much they’re spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we’re trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we’re working hard on this, but it’s a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it’s ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can’t give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can’t give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I’m saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let’s look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we’re asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I’m talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag “NYCTerroristAttack,” which is “trending,” marked with a red button saying “live,” the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, “Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump.” This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what’s your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it’s fake news and at least at some point in time it can’t keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That’s something we’re thinking about all the time because it’s a bad user experience, and we don’t want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That’s not—that shouldn’t be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don’t have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don’t know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you’re clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you’re seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn’t work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as “this was fake news”? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We’re an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone’s breaking the law, you’ve got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It’s not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something’s illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can’t just correct it; you’ve got to say to the public, this isn’t true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we’ve turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something’s just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they’re seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something’s out there that’s not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we’re removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you’re trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something’s fake, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a fake account or some bot or something. If it’s just not true and it’s wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ve heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there’re many concerned about RT’s slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT’s compliance with our policies. We’ve not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency’s important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we’re addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we’re able to limit the distribution. We’re also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I’ll stop. I’ll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I’m smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I’d be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That’s how we approach it. That’s exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don’t want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don’t want you to be, either—but today’s not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don’t understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don’t get it, but I’m out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: ; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn’t you revert RT’s preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what’s on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it’s hundreds of people. We’re at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we’re dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we’re looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There’s many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we’ll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it’s appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it’s pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you’ve been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you’ve been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you’ve been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you’ve been a consultant to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life’s work. So, when you say, ”The Kremlin disinformation playbook,” which we’re talking about here, “will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers,” you’re not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You’re talking about it as if it’s a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don’t believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don’t stop it now, it’s going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don’t put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don’t decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don’t, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what’s fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I’ve been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn’t like, doesn’t matter what side it is. Kennedy: That’s right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I’m teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we’re about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that’s a good definition, but I’ll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I’ve actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government’s paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: ; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I’ve been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We’re willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It’s the question of, who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you’ll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you’re welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn’t the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you’re privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we’re, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I’ve been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don’t know if you’re looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn’t go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you’re talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: ; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market “unfettered by federal and state regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order’s many glaring legal flaws, they’ll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I’m optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. : February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. : December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. : December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it’s necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don’t have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there’s a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: ; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we’re not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that’s pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: ; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: ; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they’ll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company’s central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation’s media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it’s relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you’ve got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They’re competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that’s providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there’s a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it’s comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don’t much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can’t discriminate; can’t play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can’t play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we’re going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there’s fairness on the playing field. Here’s a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can’t do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we’ve applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we’re talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don’t have? Some must carry and some don’t? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president’s veto last year, and over cable’s objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven’t dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that’s going to give consumers comparable choices? That’s the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company’s lines, but the telephone company can’t get on the cable system’s line? Come on. It seems to me if we’re going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: Video: Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing ! See more of Adam ! for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD162: Dishing with Matt Marr

27 november 2017 | 139 min

C-SPAN is much more fun with friends! In this special episode, Matt Marr, comedian and host of the Dear Mattie Show, joins Jen at The Comedy Store to discuss three bills that have passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Lots of laughs in this one! Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Matt's Podcast and Social Media Follow Matt on Follow Matt on Bills Full Title: "Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017" unless all scientific information used to justify it is published online and can be reproduced. the EPA spending on this new requirement to $1 million per year out of the money they already have Passed the House on March 29, 2017 by a vote of Written by the EPA Administrator and the States from requiring permits to discharge pesticides into waterways if the pesticide is authorized for sale. Passed the House on by a vote of Written by Written by of Texas's 22nd district Passed the House on July 18, 2017 by a vote of Additional Reading Article: by Sarah Kaplan, The Washington Post, November 13, 2017. Article: by Chris Mooney, The Washington Post, November 13, 2017. Blog: by Guus Velders, Scientific American, November 2, 2017. Article: by Craig Welch, National Geographic, September 20, 2017. Article: by Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone, July 27,2017. Article: by Rong-Gong Lin II, LA Times, March 1, 2017. Interview: by Lauren Kelley, Rolling Stone, February 14, 2016. Article: by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, February 11, 2016. Article: by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, September 24, 2014. Report: , MACC, Winter 2010. References Dear Mattie Show: Demographic Info: Website: Data: Research: Video: Weather Records: Visual References - Summer - Winter - Annual Sound Clip Sources House Session: , May 24, 2017 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD161: Veterans Choice Program

13 november 2017 | 151 min

The Veterans Health Administration operates a taxpayer-funded health system to provide our nation’s veterans physical and mental health services. The Veterans Choice Program is a fundamental change to that system as it allows veterans to get taxpayer-funded health care in the private sector. In this episode, learn the history of the Veterans Choice Program, discover the changes that Congress and the Trump Administration have made to the program this year, and get some insights into the future of the program. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Allows veterans to get medical care ; they can go to any health facility that serves Medicare patients, health centers, the Defense Department, and the Indian Health Service. Veterans are they'd have to wait for an appointment with the Veteran's Administration or if they live 40 miles or further from a Veteran's Administration clinic. If eligible, the veteran will receive a . Veteran notifies VA, VA puts Veteran on an electronic waiting list or authorizes their request, VA works out a payment agreement with the health care provider, VA reimburses health care provider but no more than they would for Medicare services. If the veteran gets treated for , their health insurance plan will be responsible for payment and the health care provider will be responsible for going after the insurance company for the money. Veterans for care at private facilities than they would have been charged at the Veteran's Administration. . Orders a , establishes a , and creates a to review VA practices. when determining performance bonuses for top officials at the Veteran's administration and performance goals that disincentivize using private health providers for veteran care . for health care at the VA, VA facility , and will be published online. The VA will for five years to address staffing shortages. and they'll receive for working for the VA. Expands coverage for , which will include . This will be . Extends a pilot program for assisted living care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries . that charge veterans more than State residents from being qualified schools for veteran education benefits. Makes it senior executives at the Department of Veteran's Affairs. to implement these changes. Eliminates the , which was supposed to expire when the money ran out of after three years. Changes the payment system from one where the , with doctors getting reimbursed directly from the insurance companies to a new system where the . Establishes legal permission for the government to share of veterans with "private entities" Creates a new office, , in charge of and processing of whistleblower complaints. This office will have the power to . The identities of whistleblowers unless the whistleblower consents to disclosure. The Department of Veterans' Affairs must on the whistleblowing process. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to senior executives the executive receives 15 days advance notice and all evidence against him or her, legal representation, and the ability to argue their case in an official process created by the Secretary that takes no more than 21 days. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to Veterans Administration employees for performance or misconduct. will have their pay decreased. The demotion or removal process must be completed within and the employee has 7 business days to respond. These new procedures . There is an but it must be started within 10 business days after the date of the removal, demotion, or suspension. The appeal must be decided within . The Secretary without approval of a Special Counsel or unless the Assistant Secretary refuses to act on the whistleblower account or unless a final decision has been made regarding the whistleblower's disclosure. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to or paid to VA employees if the Secretary determines that the employee engaged in misconduct or poor performance before the bonus was awarded. There is an via the Office of Personnel Management. Deposits $2.1 billion in the Veterans Choice Fund, which will not expire. and gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to directly hire people to those positions. A program to give VA employees 1 year of training in the private sector and to give private sector employees 1 year of training in the VA. Between from the private sector and the same amount from the VA will be selected in August of each year to participate. , the person must agree to work as a full-time employee of the VA for two years and is prohibited from working the corresponding private sector industry for two years after completing the program. Political appointees of the VA will have annual performance plans similar to the ones administered to career employees. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to easily promote existing employees or people who voluntarily left within 2 years, one employment status at a time. Creates a website that will list vacant positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We're paying to replace VA facilities in 28 locations. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Melissa Quinn, Washington Examiner, November 6, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 24, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 17, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 6, 2017. Article: by Richard Sisk, Military.com, August 23, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 28, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 24, 2017. Radio Transcript: , Morning Edition with David Greene, NPR, July 6, 2017. Article: by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, June 8, 2017. Article: by Lisa Lambert, Reuters, April 19, 2017. News Report: by Scott bronstein, Nelli Black, Drew Griffin and Curt Devine, CNN Investigations, January 27, 2016. Article: by David Farenthold, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. Article: by Greg Jaffe and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. References Budget Plan: GAO Report: House Amendment Act: Interactive Timeline: Slideshow: Strawman Document: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: ; House Committee on Veterans Affairs; October 24, 2017. 02:42 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): To that end, I believe it’s important to state yet again that this effort is in no way, shape, or form intended to create a pipeline to privatize the V.A. healthcare system. I want to be completely clear about that. Everyone who participated in the roundtable earlier this month and contributed to the development of this legislation should be completely clear on that. Everyone listening today should also be completely clear on that. Supplemental care sourced from within the community has been a part of the V.A. healthcare system since the 1940s and services to expand V.A.’s reach and strengthen and support the care that V.A. provides. Rhetoric aside, strengthening and support V.A. is what this consideration is about—this conversation is about. It should go without saying that V.A. cannot be everywhere providing everything to every veteran. Expecting V.A. to perform like that sets up the V.A. to fail. That’s why my draft bill preserves V.A.’s role as the central coordinator of care for enrolled veteran patients. In addition to consolidating V.A.’s menu of existing community-care programs into one cohesive program, my bill would create a seamless, integrated V.A. system of care that incorporates V.A. providers and V.A. medical facilities where and when they are available to provide care a veteran seeks and a network of V.A. providers in the community who can step up when needed. Under my draft bill, the V.A. generally retains the right of first refusal, meaning that if V.A. medical facilities can reasonably provide a needed service to a veteran, that care will be provided in that facility. But when the V.A. can’t do that, my bill would ensure that veterans aren’t left out to dry. Press Conference: ; C-Span; August 12, 2017. 0:30 David Shulkin: The V.A. Choice and Quality Employment Act has three important components. The first is that this helps us expand our ability to hire medical-center directors and other senior executives to serve in the V.A. This is about leadership, and it’s really important that we get the right leaders helping us to do the job for veterans. The second is that this bill authorizes 28 new facility leases that will be in different parts of the country that provide our veterans with updated facilities, something that, again, we are committed to providing our veterans with world-class care. And third, and most important, this bill allows us to continue to be able to provide care in the community for our veterans to make sure that they’re getting high-quality care and not waiting for care. Already this year, in the first six months of this year, we have authorized over 15 million appointments for veterans in the community. That’s 4 million appointments more than what was experienced at this time last year. So we’re making a lot of progress in expanding Choice. Hearing: ; Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; June 14, 2017. 12:29 David Shulkin: Two years ago—I’m sure you’re going to remember in July of 2015 we had too little money in our community-care accounts within the V.A., which we solved with your help by accessing unused funds in the Choice account. So we transferred money from Choice into community care. We now have too little money in the Choice account, which we’re working to solve, again working with you, with legislative authority, to replenish funds into the Choice account. So this is the situation that we’ve described before where for a single purpose of providing care in the community we have two checking accounts, and I will tell you, I wish it were easier than it is. We have to figure out how to balance these two checking accounts at all times. And obviously it’s not a science, it’s an art; and we’re having difficulty with that once again, and that’s why we need to work with you to solve it. The Veterans CARE program that we outlined for you last week will solve this recurring problem permanently by modernizing and consolidating all of the community-care accounts, including Choice. Hearing: ; Committee on Veterans Affairs; June 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary 12:55 David Shulkin: Just in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, we saw 35% more authorizations for Choice than we did in the first quarter of 2016. So far in fiscal year 2017, we have approximately 18,000 more Choice-authorized appointments per day than we did in fiscal year 2016. But we still have a lot more work to do. That’s why we’re seeking support for the Veterans Coordinated Access and Rewarding Experiences program, the Veterans CARE program. Let me just go over that again because you need a good acronym in Washington. The Veterans Coordinated Access—that’s the C and the A—Rewarding Experiences program—the CARE program. I’ve testified before and I’ll report again today that our overarching concern remains veterans’ access to high-quality care when and where they need it. That’s regardless of whether the care is in the V.A. or in the community. Our goal is to modernize and consolidate community care. We owe veterans a program that’s easy to understand, simple to administer, and that meets their needs. That’s the CARE program, and now it’s time to get this right for veterans. So we need your help. 14:23 David Shulkin: Here’s how veterans could experience V.A. healthcare, with your help. The veteran talks with their V.A. provider. That’s a conversation over the phone, virtually, or in person. The outcome is a clinical assessment. The clinical assessment may indicate that the V.A. specialist is the best for the veteran, or it may indicate that community care is best to meet the veteran’s needs. If community care is the answer, then the veteran chooses a provider from a high-performing network. That’s the veteran choosing a provider from the high-performing network. Assessment tools help veterans evaluate community providers and make the best choices themselves. We may help veterans schedule appointments in the community, or in some circumstances, veterans can schedule the appointments themselves. We make sure community providers have all the information they need to treat the veteran. We get the veteran’s record back. We pay the veteran’s bill. This is all about individualized, convenient, well-coordinated, modern healthcare and a positive experience for the veteran. If the V.A. doesn’t offer the necessary service, then the veteran goes to the community. If the V.A. can’t provide timely services, the veteran goes to the community. If there are unusual burdens in receiving care, the veteran goes to the community. If a service at a V.A. clinic isn’t meeting quality metrics for specific services, veterans needing that service go to the community while we work to support that clinic to improve its performance. And veterans who need care right away will have access to a network of walk-in clinics. 19:20 David Shulkin: We want to make sure that if the service is low performing, if it’s below what the veteran could get in the community, that they have the opportunity—they don’t have to leave the V.A. They’re given a choice so that they are able to get care in the community or stay at the V.A., because, you know, if a veteran has a good experience and they have trust in their provider, they’re going to want to stay where they are. But that is the purpose. The whole idea here is to improve the V.A., not to get more care in the community. And the very best way that I know how to improve health care is to give the patient, in this case the veteran, choice and to make those choices transparent to let everybody see, because then if you’re not performing as high-quality service, you’re going to want to provide a higher-quality service, because you want to be proud of what you’re working on. And I want the V.A. to be improving over time, and I think this will help us do that. 24:42 Sen. Patty Murray (WA): Secretary Shulkin, in your draft of Veteran CARE plan, you outline a number of pilot projects that sound to me uncomfortably like a proposals that are made by the so-called straw-man document. It’s from the commission on CARE and by the extreme, and to me unacceptable, plan put forward by the Concerned Veterans of America. And those include creating a V.A. insurance plan and separating it from CARE delivery, dividing the governance of a V.A. insurance plan and the health system, and alternative CARE model that sends veterans directly to the private sector. The goal of those types of initiatives, as originally stated in the straw-man document, is “as V.A. facilities become obsolete and are underused, they would be closed when availability and accessibility of care in the community is assured.” Those policies serve not only to dismantle the V.A. and start the health system down to a road to privatization, I just want you to know I will not support them, and I will fight them with everything I have. So, I want to ask you, why are you agreeing to pursue those unacceptable policy options? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and as clearly as you have. I share your goal. I am not in support of a program that would lead towards privatization or shutting down the V.A. programs. What I am in support of is using pilots to test various ideas about governance, about the way that the system should be, organized in the way that we should evolve, because I don’t know without testing different ideas whether they’re good ideas or not. 35:28 Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): You said something that caught my attention: this will not be an unfettered Choice program— David Shulkin: Yep. Moran: —and I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain to me and to the committee what that means. Shulkin: Yeah. There are some that have suggested that the very best approach is just give veterans a card, a voucher, and let them go wherever they want to go. And I think that there are some significant concerns about that, and you’re going to see this proposal is not that. This proposal is to develop a system that is designed for veterans, that coordinates their care, and gives them the options when it’s best for in the V.A. and when it’s best in the community. Unfettered Choice is appealing to some, but it would lead to, essentially, I believe, the elimination of the V.A. system all together. It would put veterans with very difficult problems out into the community, with nobody to stand up for them and to coordinate their care. And the expense of that system is estimated to be at the minimum $20 billion more a year than we currently spend on V.A. health care. So for all those reasons, I am not recommending that we have unfettered access. At some point in the future, if you design a system right, giving veterans complete choice, I believe in principle, is the direction we should be headed in, but not in 2017. 39:05 Sen. Jon Tester (MT): I want to go back to the Choice program, community care versus V.A. care, and tell you where we’re probably all on the same page around this rostrum, but as we’re all on the same page and the budget comes out and gives a 33% increase for private-sector care versus a 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A., it doesn’t take very many budgets like that and pretty soon you’re not going to have any vets going to the V.A., because all the money’s going to community care, and they will follow the money. I promise you they will follow the money. I think that—I don’t want to put words in the VSO’s mouth. He’ll have a chance here in a bit—but I think most of the veterans I talk to say, build the V.A.’s capacity. In Montana we don’t have enough docs, we don’t have enough nurses, we don’t have enough of anything. And quite frankly, that takes away from the experience and the quality of care, and so by putting 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A. and 33% for private-sector care, we’re privatizing the V.A. with that budget. David Shulkin: Yeah. I told you I wasn’t going to say that you were right again, but there’s a lot that you said that I think that we both agree with. And the goal is not to privatize the V.A. What we’re asking for in this is something we don’t have. We need additional flexibility between the money that goes into the community and the money that can be spent in the V.A. Right now we’re restricted to a 1% ability to transfer money between. We are seeking that you give us more latitude there for exactly the reason you’re talking about, Senator. We need our medical centers and our VISNs to be able to say that they need to build capacity in the V.A. where it’s not available. The reason why we’re letting people go in the community now is because the V.A. doesn’t have it. We have to get them that care. Tester: I got it, but if we don’t make the investments so they can get that health care, they’ll never get that health care there. Shulkin: I— Tester: Okay. Hearing: ; House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; May 3, 2017. Witness: Dr. David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary 16:13 David Shulkin: More veterans are opting for Choice than ever before, five times more in fiscal year 2016 than fiscal year 2015, and Choice authorizations are still rising. We’ve issued 35% more authorizations in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 than in the same quarter of 2016. 18:00 David Shulkin: My five priorities as secretary are to provide greater Choice for veterans, to modernize our systems, to focus resources more efficiently, to improve the timeliness of our services, and suicide prevention among veterans. We are already taking bold steps towards achieving each of these priorities. Two weeks ago the president signed a reauthorization of the Veterans Choice Act, ensuring veterans can continue to get care from community providers. Just last week the president ordered the establishment of a V.A. accountability office, and we’re moving as quickly as we can within the limits of the law to remove bad employees. V.A. has removed medical center directors in San Juan; Shreveport, Louisiana; and recently we’ve relieved the medical center director right here in Washington, D.C. and removed three other senior executive service leaders due to misconduct or poor performance. We simply cannot tolerate employees who act counter to our values or put veterans at risk. Since January of this year, we’ve authorized an estimated 6.1 million community-care appointments, 1.8 million more than last year, a 42% increase. We now have same-day services for primary care and mental health at all of our medical centers across the country. Veterans can now access wait-time data for their local V.A. facilities by using an easy online tool where they can see those wait times. No other healthcare system in the country has this type of transparency. V.A. is setting new trends with public-private partnerships. Last month we announced a public-private partnership of an ambulatory care development center, with a donation of roughly $30 million in Omaha, Nebraska, thanks to Mr. Fortenberry’s help there. Veterans now have, or will have, a facility that’s being built with far fewer taxpayer dollars than in the past. Finally, V.A. is saving lives. My top clinical priority is suicide prevention. On average 20 veterans a day die by suicide. A few months ago the Veterans Crisis Line had a rollover rate to a backup center of more than 30%. Today that rate is less than 1%. In support of our efforts to reduce suicides, we’ve launched new predictive modeling tools that allow V.A. to provide proactive care and support for veterans who are at the highest risk of suicide. And I’ve recently announced the V.A. will be providing emergency mental health care to former service members with other-than-honorable discharges at all of our medical facilities. We know that these veterans are at greater risk for suicide, and we’re now caring for them as well as we can. 23:19 David Shulkin: The VISTA system is something that, frankly, V.A. should be proud of. It invented it, it was the leader in electronic health records, but, frankly, that’s old history, and we have to look at keeping up and to modernize the system. I’ve said two things, Mr. Chairman, in the past. I’ve said, number one is, V.A. has to get out of the business of becoming a software developer. This is not our core competency. I don’t see why it serves veterans. I think we’re doing this in a way that, frankly, we can’t keep up with. So, I’ve said that we’re going to get out of that business. We’re either going to find a commercial company that will take over and support VISTA or we’re going to go to an off-the-shelf product. And that’s really what we’re evaluating now. We have an RFI out for, essentially, the commercialization of VISTA that we wouldn’t longer be doing internally. 27:33 David Shulkin: We also, as we get more veterans out into the community, out into the private-sector hospitals, we have to be very concerned about interoperability with those partners as well. 38:24 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL): Given that your goal is one program, are you analyzing which program ultimately would be phased out, because we have a tendency to instead of phasing out programs because they have people with a vested interest in them, simply— David Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —going along to get along rather than rocking the boat, and so if we’re adding $3 1/2 billion to the Choice program and it had 950 million left, there have been challenges with the Choice program and confusion, and there are still challenges with the community care program, in what direction is the V.A. thinking of going when we—and what is the timeline for ultimately— Shulkin: Right. Schultz: — phasing out one program and only having one? Shulkin: Right. Well, with almost certainty I can tell you there will not be three programs, because the current Choice program will run out of money— Schultz: Right. Shulkin: —by the end of this calendar year. So, that program is going to go away and should be through December of this year. What we are hoping to do is to work with you so that we can introduce a community-care funding program—the chairman referred to it as Choice 2.0—which is a program that makes sense for veterans, which is a single program that operates under one set of rules for how veterans get care in the community. And that new legislation, which we believe needs to be introduced by late summer or early fall in order to make the timeline, would end up with a single program. Schultz: So, you eventually envision phasing out community care with the advent— Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —of Choice 2.0. 1:33:11 Rep. Charles Dent (PA): In the one-page FY ’18 skinny budget we received in March, there’s a V.A. request for $2.9 billion in new mandatory funding, presumably to complete the FY ’18 funding for the Choice program after the mandatory $10 billion of the program is completely exhausted in January, I guess. Does this indicate the administration’s intent to fund the successor Choice program out of mandatory funding? David Shulkin: Yes. 1:45:37 Rep. Tom Rooney (FL): And many of the providers that are technically participating in the Choice program are refusing to accept Choice patients because they know that they’ll have to wait a long time to get paid themselves. So some providers that don’t accept the Choice patients will only do so if the veteran agrees to pay for the services up front. And that leaves the veterans in that same bind they were in before Choice, which was either face the excessive wait times at the V.A. facility with no option to obtain immediate care elsewhere without paying out of pocket first. And obviously that’s not the point, or that’s not what we’re looking to do. So, I mean, you as a doctor can probably appreciate, you know, with these people that want to take the Choice program to help veterans but they know that it’s going to take forever to get reimbursed be like, hey, will you pay me first, and then, you know, we’ll deal with getting reimbursed later. I don’t know if that’s the rationale, but it sounds like that. The OIG has criticized the V.A.’s monitoring oversight for these contracts and reported that these contracts still don’t have performance measures to ensure the contractors pay their providers in a timely manner, and the OIG made this recommendation January 30 of this year. So, as you work to expand the Choice program, how are you implementing the OIG’s recommendation specifically with regard to timely reimbursements? David Shulkin: Well, there is no doubt that this is an area of significant risk for us, that monitoring and making sure that the providers are paid is critical because of the issues that you’re saying: the veterans are being put in the middle. I would not recommend the veterans put out money for this. That is, as you said, is not the point of it. What we have done is we have done multiple contract modifications. We’ve actually advanced money to the third-party administrators. I’ve suspended the requirement that providers have to provide their medical records to us in order to get paid. We are improving our payment cycles through the Choice program, but it’s not perfect by any means. We have to get better at our auditing of these processes, and those were the IG recommendations, and we are working on doing that. So this is a significant area of risk for us. In the reauthorization, or the redesign, of the Choice program, what we’re calling Choice 2.0, we want to eliminate the complexity of this process. The private sector does not have to do the type of adjudication of claims that we do. They do auto adjudification. They do electronic claims payments. We just are not able to, under this legislation, do all the things that, frankly, we know are best practices. That’s what we want to get right in Choice 2.0. 1:56:40 David Shulkin: Our care needs to be focused on those that are eligible for care, particularly when we have access issues. So, I’d be glad to talk to you more about that. I do want to just mention two things. First of all, our policy is for emergency mental health care for other-than-honorable, not dishonorably, discharged; dishonorably discharged who were not— Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): Sorry if I misspoke. David Shulkin: Yeah, yeah, okay. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): But I do applaud you for those efforts. David Shulkin: I just wanted to clarify that. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): I know that there are a lot of wounds that are mental, of course, and— David Shulkin: Absolutely. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): —I get that. I applaud you for those efforts. Hearing: ; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; March 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary Michael Missal - Veterans Affairs Inspector General Randall Williamson - GAO Health Care Team Director 20:35 David Shulkin: However, we do need your help. The Veterans Choice Program is going to expire in less than six months, but our veterans’ community-care needs will not expire. This looming expiration is a cause for concern among veterans, providers, and V.A. staff, and we need help in eliminating the expiration date of the Choice program on August 7, 2017 so that we can fully utilize the remaining Choice funds. Without congressional action, veterans will have to face longer wait times for care. Second, we need your help in modernizing and consolidating community care. Veterans deserve better, and now is the time to get this right. We believe that a modernized and revised community-care program must have seven key elements. First, maintain a high-performing integrated network that includes V.A., federal partners, academic affiliates, and community providers. Second, increase Choice for all veterans, starting with those with cer—(audio glitch). Third, ensure that enrolled veterans get the care they need closer to their homes, when appropriate. Fourth, optimize coordination of V.A. healthcare benefits with the health insurance that an enrolled veteran already has. Fifth, maintain affordability of healthcare options for the lowest-income enrolled veterans. Sixth, assist in coordination of care for veterans served by multiple providers. And last, apply industry standards for performance quality, patient satisfaction, payment models, and healthcare outcomes. 23:24 Michael Missal: In October 2015, V.A. provided Congress with a plan to consolidate all V.A.’s purchased care programs into V.A.’s community-care program. Under consolidation, V.A. continues to have problems determining eligibility for care, authorizing care, making accurate payments, providing timely payments to providers, and ensuring the necessary coordination of care provided to veterans outside the V.A. healthcare system. 30:30 Randall Williamson: Finally, substantial resources will likely be needed to carry out Choice 2.0. Resources needed to fund IT upgrades and new applications for Choice are largely unknown but could be costly. Proposed changes in Choice eligibility requirements, such as eliminating the 30-day, 40-mile requirement for eligibility, could potentially greatly increase the number of veterans seeking care through community providers and drive costs up considerably. Also, if medical-center staff begin scheduling all appointments under Choice 2.0, as V.A. currently envisions, hiring more V.A. staff will likely be costly and tediously slow. Already, since Choice was established, V.A. medical-center staff devoted to helping veterans access non-V.A. care have increased threefold or more at many locations. 1:04:00 David Shulkin: We are looking primarily at technological solutions, and we are looking at the use of telehealth, which we are doing across V.A. on a scale that no other health system in America is even approaching—2.1 million visits; over 700,000 veterans getting access through telehealth services—and so we are looking at this very seriously about dramatically expanding its use to be able to support where we don’t have health professionals. 1:06:20 David Shulkin: Remember, we have four missions. The clinical care is what we always talk about, but we also have an education mission. We train more American healthcare professionals than any other organization in the country, we have research that’s dedicated solely to the improvement of the wellbeing of veterans, and we also serve a national emergency-preparedness role. So, all four of these missions are very important to us. I would just say two things. One thing is we know from the Choice program that only 5,000 of the several—of more now than a million veterans who’ve used the program chose only to use the Choice program. So they’re saying exactly what your constituent told you, which is the V.A. is essential and important to them. But we are not going to allow the V.A. programs to be diluted, and one of the reasons why that’s so important is that we need to modernize the V.A. system. Our lack of capitalizing the V.A. system in terms of the buildings, the equipment, the IT systems, could make it a noncompetitive system. But we’re going to make sure that the facilities that are open are the best for veterans, and veterans are going to want to continue to get their care there. The community-care program is a way to make sure that we supplement the V.A. in an integrated fashion. 1:10:00 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): The department itself has estimated that it can treat and cure most of the remaining 124,000 diagnosed cases of hepatitis C within the next three years. Is it the V.A.’s commitment that that timeline will be held to and that these will be treated regardless of the level of their liver disease or where they might be at? David Shulkin: Yes. Thanks to the support from Congress, we were provided the resources to meet that timeline. I actually think we’re going to beat it, but with one caveat. What we’ve learned is that our initial outreaches, we were getting thousands and thousands of veterans to come in and to get treatment. We have a treatment, of course, as you know, that now cures more than 95% of hepatitis C. So it’s tremendous medical advance. The doctor to my right is one of those doctors. He’s an I.D. doctor who does this in his clinical work at the V.A. Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Shulkin: What we’re finding now is, and if Dr. Yehia wants to comment on this, we’re finding that we’re now seeing less and less veterans coming in to get cured. There is a substantial number of veterans for a number of reasons, either psychological reasons or social reasons, who are not taking advantage of this care. And so this is now becoming a research question for us. How do we have to begin to approach people that are saying, I have a disease that may end up killing me, but I’m not interested in the treatment. And so I think we’re going to beat your three-year timeline, but there's still going to be a subset of veterans that don’t want to come in and get care. 1:12:50 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): What would happen if we didn’t make that extension go past the August 7, and what would be the final cutoff if we don’t get it past? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, if we don’t do this extension, this is going to be a disaster for American veterans. We’re going to see the same situation that we saw in April 2014, that Senator Kaine started out tonight with, that we saw in Phoenix. And so here’s the timeline. We do need to do this now. As I think Chairman Roe referred to, already today veterans are not able to use the Choice program, because the law states that we have to obligate the funds now for when the care is going to be delivered. So a pregnant veteran who comes to us and says, I want to get care using the Choice program, they no longer can, because nine months from now is past August 7. But this is now beginning to happen with care that is multiple months in length, like oncology care and chemotherapy and other types of therapies. We have a chart that shows that when you start getting towards the end of April to May, this is where you’re going to start seeing a large number of veterans not being able to get access to care, because episodes of care that we’re used to, like hip replacements and other things, are generally three to four months. So we think the time is now that we need to act. Bost: Okay, so, but what we’re doing is not any intention to privatize or anything like that. This is just making sure that those people who are on the Choice program, that we are moving forward to make sure that those services are provided. Shulkin: Not only that, but this is not going to cost any additional money. We are just seeking the authority to spend the money that you’ve already given us past August 7 of this year. 1:17:15 David Shulkin: We are going to go and we are going to start providing mental health care for those that are other-than-honorably discharged for urgent mental health. And we want to work with Representative Coffman on his bill on this, and we want to do as much as we can. But I don’t think it can wait, and so we’re going to start doing that now. I believe that’s in the secretary’s authority to be able to do that. Hearing: ; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; October 7, 2015. Witnesses: Robert McDonald: then Secretary of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin: Under Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Brett Giroir: Senior Fellow at the Texas medical Center Health Policy Institute 13:37 Robert McDonald: As you know, we have five strategies: first is improving the veteran experience, second is improving the employee experience, third is achieving support-service excellence, fourth is establishing a culture of continuous improvement, and fifth is enhancing strategic partnerships, and we would be happy to drill down on those during the question period. 14:17 Robert McDonald: In the past year, we’ve moved out aggressively in response to the access crisis, meeting increasing demand and expanding capacity on four fronts: more staffing, more space, more productivity, and more V.A. care in the community. During that period of time, we’ve completed 7 million more appointments for veterans of completed care: 4 1/2 million in the community, 2 1/2 million within V.A. We’ve added more space, we’ve added more providers, we’ve added more extra hours, all in effect to get more veterans in. But because of that, and because we’ve done a better job of caring for veterans, we have more veterans desiring care. So even those 97% of appointments are now completed within 30 days of the needed or preferred date, the number not completed in 30 days has grown from 300,000 to nearly 500,000. 16:15 Robert McDonald: We simply can’t make many necessary changes because of statutory limitations. We need to consolidate our various care in the community programs. We need a freer hand to hire, assign, and reward the executives we task to act as change agents. We need a freer hand in disposing of outdated, unused, or little-used facilities. We need a freer hand in the management of existing facilities so facilities’ managers can adjust their use of resources to the changing needs of veterans. 25:47 Brett Giroir: As background, in 2014 9.1 million of 21.6 million U.S. veterans were enrolled in the VHA. Of these, 5.8 million were actual patients, and on average these patients relied on the VHA for much less than 50% of their healthcare services. These demographic data combined with access challenges suggest reconsideration of whether the VHA should aim to be the comprehensive provider for all veterans’ health needs or whether the VHA should evolve into more focus centers providing specialized care while utilizing non-VHA providers for the majority of veterans’ healthcare needs. Either paradigm could be highly beneficial to veterans as long as the demand and resources are prospectively aligned and there is a consolidation of current programs to simplify access to non-VHA providers. 30:05 David Shulkin: The V.A. approach is to find the very best care that serves the veterans, and I think that we’ve shown that in response to our access crisis that we have encouraged the use of community care to address our access issues. I think the difference here between—maybe what I would expand on what Dr. Giroir said is that the care that V.A. provides is very, very different than the care that the private sector provides. The V.A. provides a much more comprehensive approach than just dealing with physical-illness issues. It provides psychological and social aspects of care that actually meet the needs of what veterans require. And that's why I think that we really do need to do what Dr. Giroir said, which is to see what VHA provides best for our veterans and what care can be provided by the private sector, and it’s that hybrid-type system that's going to meet our veteran's needs. 34:39 Former Rep. Corrine Brown (FL): I think the elephant in the room is that there are people out there that would actually want to just completely close the V.A. and privatize the entire V.A. system, which is totally unacceptable and it is absolutely not what the veterans want. And as you begin, I want you to discuss flexibility, but I want you to let people know how many people we actually serve every day throughout this country. Robert McDonald: Thank you, Ranking Member Brown. As I was going through my confirmation process, I often got the question from senators why—you know, from some senators, small group—why don't we get rid of the V.A. and just give out vouchers? So I studied that—as a business person, I wanted to know—and what I discovered was V.A.'s not only essential for veterans, it's essential for American medicine and it's essential for the American people. Three-legged stool: research. We spent $1.8 billion a year on research. We invented the nicotine patch. We were the ones who discovered the aspirin was important for heart disease—take an aspirin every day. First liver transplant. First implantable pacemaker. Last year two V.A. doctors invented the shingles vaccine. I could go on. That research is important for the American people, and I didn't even mention posttraumatic stress or traumatic brain injury or prosthetics, things that we're known for. Second, training. We trained 70% of the doctors in this country. Who's going to train those doctors without the V.A.? We have also the largest employer of nurses and the largest trainer of nurses. Third leg is clinical work. Our veterans get the best clinical care because our doctors are doctors that not only do the clinical care but also do research and teach in the best medical schools of our country. So I think the American people benefit from the V.A., and it would be a big mistake to even think about privatizing it. 1:06:06 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): Let me go right to what I wanted to talk about which is my own veteran’s officer at home—person that does my work at home—and basically what she’s saying is, how do you get an appointment through the Veterans Choice Program? She said she had been trying to put together a summary, and what's happening is there’re two ways you get in there: a veteran can either be eligible by a 30-day wait list or more than 40 miles. And the most of problems she saw were the 30-day list. And this is what happens. Below is the information’s been given to me by the roll out of the program. In my experience, there appears to be a breakdown somewhere in this process but have been unable to get clear answers on how to fix it. The V.A. blames TriWest; TriWest blames the V.A. Eligibility is determined by the V.A. primary-care doctor if the appointment’s passed 30 days. The non-V.A. care staff then uploads this list of eligible veterans to the V.A. central office here in Washington nightly, and the veteran’s told to wait five to seven days and then call TriWest. The central office then sends the information to TriWest, can take three to seven days. If the consults don't get added, medical documentation didn't get uploaded, authorizations gets canceled, then the veteran’s on a merry-go-round. Look, when they came to my office to get an appointment, I said, you need an appointment with Dr. Smith. They went out front and made the appointment. That's what should happen. It ain’t that complicated. And all of this in between—and I could go on and on—TriWest has a different view of it, and I want to submit this to the record because it really gets to the bottom of what’s actually going— Unknown Chairman: Not objection. Roe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The non-V.A. care staff were given no training on this, and they basically were left just to wing it, how to make these appointments. That was one of the things was brought up in the report. Our local V.A. care—non-V.A. care staff—increased from 5 to 15 but still are struggling to make all these appointments, and there's talk of—now, listen to this right here—there is talk of calling each patient for every appointment to make sure they keep it. If the patient says, I don't want to go, they still are told to call them two times a month until the past the appointment time. That's a complete waste of time. And the outpatient clinics also ought to be able to add patients to the electronic wait list instead of sending them over because appointment may come up; veterans get left out like that. And the TriWest portal is not very friendly. Private doctors did not like jumping through all the hoops of the Choice programmers saying they must give a percent of their fee to TriWest in order for TriWest to file the claim. So, we have a clinic that’s closing in our office, in our V.A., on a chiropractic and pulmonary clinic, because the doctors are just fed up with the way the system is. It’s so bureaucratic. So, anyway, I could go on and on. This is a very extensive—this is on-the-ground stuff that’s going on today at our medical center, and I bet you it's going on around the country. And I think these are things I will submit to you so you can get to work on this, and, again, appreciate the effort that you put into it. Mr. Chairman, there’s some valuable information here for the V.A. to use. And I yield back. Unknown Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Brown, you had a question. Corrine Brown: I do, because I want the secretary to answer that, because I think—I'm meeting with TriWest today—but the important thing is, you can't send a veteran to an agency or anywhere until they get prior approval from the V.A. because the most important thing is that that doctor get that reimbursement. So can you clear this up? I mean, no person in my office can send someone to a doctor; it must go through the system so that you get prior approval. And once that's done, how long—why does it take so long for that physician to get reimbursed, and can he answer that question? Robert McDonald: We have flowcharted that process, and let me let David talk about the improvements that we’ve made to that process. He'll answer questions one and three, and I'll take two on the facilities. David Shulkin: Okay. Dr. Roe, I think your old adage on the three A's is exactly right. And you have to remember we brought this Choice system up in 90 days. This is a national, very complex system, and what we've heard after bringing it up in 90 days is exactly the type of feedback that you've been hearing from your constituents. The secretary and I are both out in the field, we understand that these problems are happening, and so what we've begun to do is to redesign the system and to process-map it out. Both the secretary and I spoke to the CEO of TriWest last evening, and we are beginning now to make outbound calls to the veterans before they had to call in. We are beginning to actually embed TriWest staff in the V.A. so that they're working in teams, and we're beginning to start eliminating some of those steps. It is going to take a while. It is painful to watch this when you hear stories like what you're hearing, but we understand the problems there, we are working very hard, we think TriWest and Health Net are working to help us make the system better, and we're committed to doing this with urgency. 1:58:08 David Shulkin: We do have a crisis in leadership. We have too many open, vacant positions. We have too many people in acting positions and interim positions. You can't expect that you're going to have a transformation in a health system unless you have stable leadership in place. We need your help on this. We need your help to help create the V.A. to be an environment people want to come and serve and to be excited about, and we are asking for your help in Title 38 for the—Hybrid Title 38—to be able to help get the right type of compensation for leadership positions in V.A. That will help us a lot. Hearing: ; House Rules Committee; July 28, 2015. 1:28:40 Bradley Byrne (AL): We don’t need to have a government-run healthcare system for our veterans. We need to transition out of it and give all of our veterans a card, just like an insurance card. Hearing: ; House Veterans Affairs Committee; July 22, 2015. 19:20 Robert McDonald Clinical output has increased 8% while budget has increased 2%, 35% more people (1.5 million beneficiaries) 20:22 Robert McDonald Increased Choice authorizations by 44% (900,000), 4% more appointments, percentages of wait times, wait times for types of care 21:50 Robert McDonald Care crisis of 2014 was caused by an imbalance in supply and demand, VA has been governing to fit a budget, not making budget fit the care, stats on new enrollees, 147% increase. enrolled veterans use VA for 34% of their care 56:00 Robert McDonald Here is a packet explaining the transformation of the VA, we have an advisory board full of CEOs, VA is going through the largest transformation in it’s history 1:09:40 Tim Heulskamp (KS) Concerned that money will be redirect away from Choice and he thinks “many employees” are not supportive of Choice, throws out bullshit numbers James Tuchschmidt corrects him and said they took money out to pay for the Hepatitis C drug 1:11:50 Tim Heulskamp wants to know why only two people have been fired for the wait time scandal. Robert McDonald many have retired, one indictment, 1,300 have been fired, new leadership, 7 million more appointments this year 1:27:30 Rep.Jackie Walorski (IN) Veterans died because of the Veteran’s Administration, I wanted to see people go to prison, list of things she’s pissed about, "Nothing is working” Robert McDonald 300,000 on wait list a year ago, low wait times, 1:35:00 McDonald we need a better system for anticipating what demand will be. 34% of eligible people are using VA system right now 1:35:20 Robert McDonald the crisis in 2014 was due to Vietnam vets, not Iraq & Afghanistan and we need to prepare as they age 1:36:00 Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) Why don’t we “refer out" the care that’s not directly related to military service? Robert McDonald people like to have all their doctors in one place, private sector doctors have to treat veterans differently - different questions to ask 1:41:00 Phil Roe (TN) Getting veterans outside care should be be through 1 program because it "aught to be easy" 1:43:50 Robert McDonald Moral is low because people don't want to be called out for not caring. They work hard every day 1:46:00 Kathleen Rice (D-NY) Why is there a budget shortfall? Robert McDonald 7 million more veterans needed care. "That's the reason" 1:56:00 Mark Takano (D-CA) New way of operating with non-VA providers - "Care in the Community" - not a conspiracy to "disappear the VA" - That's why we changed the name 2:05:00 Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) We should "outsource" collections” of payment from veterans with other insurance James Tuchschmidt We are looking at doing that. Wenstrup we should take bids. 2:18:00 Robert McDonald We are in favor of Choice program & we need to know about any employees who aren't because "that would be wrong" - Don't care where they get care as long as it's great care 2:20:00 Jerry McNerney (D-CA) Do you favor public private partnerships? Robert McDonald Yes, it's part of our transformation strategy. we have an “office of strategic parterships” 2:22:55 James Tuchschmidt We thought more people would use Choice, the goal was to not have vets waiting more than 30 days for care, we're asking to use that money to pay for care we purchased, we want a bill before you leave in August 2:28:00 James Tuchschmidt We’ve treated over 20,000 veterans with hepatitis C and veterans can use the Choice Program to get their treatment Rep.Ralph Abraham (LA) $500 million would be designated for Hepatitis C treatment Robert McDonald yes Hearing: ; House Veterans Affairs Committee; June 18, 2014. 50:40 Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX): Why have the V.A. at all? Why not privatize that care? The private sector could do it better. What’s missing in the V.A. is competition. Our veterans deserve the very best. Let’s not keep them in this institution that’s not working. From veterans, almost to a person, I hear, if I get in the V.A., I love the care. I’m treated very, very well. The outcomes are great. Don’t touch the V.A. So, what do you do best, and what does the V.A. do best? And five years down the road, after we get out of this current crisis, what will this look like? Unknown Speaker: That’s a great question. And it’s an honor to serve El Paso, where I spent part of my childhood when my dad was in the army as a doc. I will tell you that I hope it does not take five years. And I think everybody else would echo that statement. My belief is that the first phase is to make sure that the program that the V.A. has invested taxpayer money in—VAPC3—is put in place, is mature, that the processes on the V.A. side are mature, that our processes are mature, and that together we’re identifying where those pockets of veterans are that might not otherwise be able to get what they need in a complete capacity through the direct V.A. system because they lack the capacity to deliver on all the needs, and that the V.A. syst— Yes, sir. O’Rourke: Let me—I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I do want to understand what you think beyond taking care of capacity issues when the V.A.’s not able to see someone in a reasonable period of time. Are there specific kinds of care that you all would be better equipped to take care of? For example, I often think the V.A. is or should be better at handling PTSD or the aftereffects of traumatic brain injury because they see so many people like that as opposed to your typical health system or hospital. Maybe that’s a V.A. center of excellence. Is there something on the outside that we should just move all appointments or consults or procedures in a given area over to the private sector or let the private sector compete for? Unknown Speaker: Great question. My personal view is that it’s too early to ask that question—or to answer it, probably a better way to put it. It’s early to ask it, it’s right to ask it, you’re looking over the horizon line, but that we first need to get the pieces plugged together. And then there needs to be a make-by decision, category by category, and facility by facility, to look at what’s best done with taxpayer funds. Is it best to have the direct system provide care for four veterans in a particular category? Is that really necessary? Or should we buy that on the outside because it’s more efficient and more effective? 54:30 O’Rourke: You know, I’ve been on this committee for a year and a half now—it’s my first year in Congress—but I’d never been approached by a lobbyist on my way in to a meeting. Today I was, who represents providers in the private sector in El Paso and said, we have a hard time getting paid. It takes us a year sometimes. We want to see these veterans who are not able to be seen by the V.A., but it’s going to be really hard to do this if we don’t get paid. 1:34:00 Jolly: We need to do even more in providing a veteran choice. This, bottom line. The question, though, is how do we do that in a way that’s fiscally responsible? And so my question for you generally—and again, if you don’t have enough information, that’s certainly fine—in your role of supporting non-V.A. care, can you give either an assessment, if you have the technical information, or if it’s just in a working opinion on the cost effectiveness compared to traditional care, realizing that we have hard infrastructure costs within our V.A. system that aren’t reflective when you go to non-V.A. We can look at all sorts of data. I’m somebody who thinks typically data’s manipulated to get whatever outcome or position we want to finally be able to support. But can you give an opinion or assessment on the cost effectiveness of non-V.A. care versus within the V.A.? Ms. Doody: I can tell you from our experience with Project ARCH—and I wish I could give you specific numbers, sir—the company Altarum, who was contracted to collect this information—my understanding is they’re going to report back to you folks in 2015—are looking at the cost of care per veteran. From my understanding, it is less than if they would have gone to a V.A. facility for certain procedures. So, again, it’s anecdotal. It may be geographic; I can’t comment on the other regions or other states in our nation. But also just limiting the amount of mileage, the travelling that the veteran would have to do travelling to a V.A. hospital to receive care as a savings to the system also. 1:45:00 Titus: You confirm that you can’t talk about the cost effectiveness; there’s just not enough data there, yet you think it’s working pretty well, but we don’t have any hard figures, and we also know that CVO’s been kind of unable to assess the cost going forward, and nobody’s talking about how to pay for it. Yet, we are moving pell mell towards more veterans using this kind of non-V.A. care. And it’s not that I’m opposed to that, but I want us to do it right or else we’ll be having hearings five years from now, talking about all the problems with non-V.A. care. Now, to hear y’all talk about it, you’re not having any problems; things are working great under your networks. But we know that’s not true, either. I mean, there are problems out there, and we need to be serious about how to address them from the beginning. Now, as I understand it, y’all are just kind of like the middleman, like Sallie Mae and Medicare Advantage, where you have a contract to provide a service. That’s fine, but as you push more people out into the private sector, do you see your kind of business growing, or is your network going to cover more areas, or are more new networks and competition going to come on to be part of this new system that we’re going to be creating? Hearing: ; House Veterans Affairs Committee; April 9, 2014. 2:35 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): On Monday, shortly before this public hearing, V.A. provided evidence that a total of 23 veterans have died due to delays and care at V.A. medical centers. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our committee still doesn’t know when they may have happened beyond the statement from V.A. that they most likely occurred between 2010 and 2012. These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the V.A.’s consult review, this committee has reviewed at least 18 preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection-control practices, and a whole host—a whole host—of maladies that plagued the V.A. healthcare system all across this great nation. 8:53 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not personally persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew that they needed. That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had Stage IV colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and to his liver. 13:55 Barry Coates: My name is Barry Lynne Coates, and due to the inadequate and lack of followup care I received through the V.A. system, I stand here before you terminally ill today. 16:10 Barry Coates: I’ve talked to numerous veterans since all this occurred, and a lot of them, I hear the same story like my story, you know, why didn’t we receive help, why didn’t I get care earlier, why didn’t it get outsourced? And outsourced is probably a good thing that needs to be put into policy if it’s backed up to a part they can’t control. CNN Report: , January 30, 2014. Music Presented in this Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

CD160: Equifax Breach

30 oktober 2017 | 136 min

If you are an American adult, there is a good chance that criminals now have the ability to match your name and social security number, greatly increasing your risk of becoming a victim of identity fraud. In this episode, hear highlights from Congressional hearings about the Equifax breach that exposed the personal information of 145.5 million Americans as we explore the key role that credit reporting companies play in our society. Please Support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Additional Reading Blog Post: by Tim Fernholz, Quartz Media, October 24, 2017. Article: by Aaron Mark, Slate, October 4, 2017. Article: by Michael Ray, Anita Sharpe, & Jordan Robertson, Bloomberg Technology, September 19, 2017. Article: by Seena Gressin, Federal Trade Commission, September 8, 2017. Article: by Matt Egan, CNN Money, August 31, 2017. Article: by Gretchen Morenson, The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Blog Post: by Mike Brown, Lend EDU, April 12, 2017. Article: by Gillian B. White, The Atlantic, January 4, 2017. Report: , CFPB, January 3, 2017. Article: by Andrew Blake, The Washington Times, November 11, 2015. Article: by Sean Trainor, Time, July 22, 2015. Publication: by Kenneth P. Brevoort, Philipp Grimm, & Michelle Kambara, CPFB, May 2015. Blog Post: by Simple.Thrifty.Living, Huffpost, April 14, 2015 Article: by STAFF, Lexington Law, January 26, 2015. Article: by Alex Hawkes and Simon Watkins, The Mail, March 2, 2013. Article: by Stephanie Clifford, The New York Times, August 4, 2008. Article: by Malgorzata Wozniacka & Snigdha Sen, Frontline, November 23, 2004. Publication: by Mark Furletti, Discussion Paper, June 2002. Article: by Roy Reed, New York Times, March 13, 1968. References Bill Actions Tracking: Credit Report Website: Experian: FTC Consumer Response Center: Identity Theft Website: Open Secrets: Open Secrets: Senate Vote Summary: Sound Clip Sources Senate Session: ; Senate; October 24, 2017. 3:57:20 Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH): Studies show that Wall Street and other big companies win 93 percent of the time in arbitration. Ninety-three percent of the time in arbitration the companies win. No wonder they are fighting like hell. No wonder they have lobbied this place like we have never seen. No wonder every Wall Street firm is down here begging their Senators to stand strong with Wall Street and pass this CRA, pass this resolution to undo the rule stopping forced arbitration. 4:05:00 Sen. Mike Crapo (ID): The real issue is whether we will try to force the resolution of disputes in financial resolution into class action lawsuits. This is a question about whether we should force dispute resolution mechanisms into class actions. In fact, let me read the actual language of the rule that we are debating. It doesn’t say anything about forced arbitration clauses. In fact, the rule doesn’t stop arbitration clauses in contracts. It stops protections in arbitration clauses against class action litigation. Let’s read what the actual rule says: The CFPB rule prohibits a company from relying in any way on a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to any aspect of a class action that concerns any consumer financial product or service. In other words, the entire purpose of this rule is to promote class action litigation and to stop arbitration resolution when there is a dispute. Hearing: ; Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law; October 4, 2017. Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO of Equifax 27:20 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Additionally, we must appreciate that fact that not all data breaches are the same. The information and risk of harm can greatly vary from one breach to another. For example, the past breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus, which this committee held a hearing to examine, involved financial information such as credit and debit cards. Of course, this is information that absolutely must be protected and secured. If it falls in the wrong hands, it can create a lot of problems for individuals. But in the Equifax data breach, I think that’s different. It’s important that consumers and policymakers recognize this distinction because the threat landscape has changed. The information hackers obtained or gained access to in the Equifax breach is the most sensitive personal information used by thieves to commit identity theft. So, we should let that sink in very definitely. A credit card number or bank account information can be changed with a phone call, but you can’t change your social security number and your date of birth. Anyone who’s ever applied for a loan, a credit card, a job, or opened a bank account knows you have to provide a social security number, date of birth to verify your identity. Thus, if someone has this information they can do the same and take over your identity. They can become you. And you won’t know it happened until it’s too late. 38:30 Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ): In your testimony before the House yesterday, you stated that Equifax’s “traditional business model is with companies, not with 400 million consumers.” What portion of Equifax’s business is consumer facing? Richard Smith: Mr. Chairman, roughly 10% of our revenues around the world come from what we call B to C—business to consumer. Flake: That’s 10%. Then, what is the main source of Equifax’s revenue stream? Smith: The vast majority, the remaining, is largely doing analytics, insights, and providing solutions to banks, telecommunications companies, credit card issuers, insurance companies, and the like around the world. Flake: So, if only 10% of the revenue is consumer facing, what is the company’s incentive for keeping consumer data secure when it has no meaningful interaction or limited meaningful interaction with the accountability of consumers? Smith: We are clearly viewed as a trusted steward of that information, and losing that information violates the trust and confidence not only of the consumer but also of the companies we do business with as well. 1:01:52 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): You spent a lot of money lobbying against as consumer-protection act that might require you to notify consumers immediately in such breaches. Are you still going to fight and still spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop that kind of a consumer-protection bill from going through? Richard Smith: Senator, I can tell you as a company we do have a government-relations team. In the scheme of things, it’s relatively small. We’re a company with expenses of well over $2 billion. I think our entire lobbying budget, which includes association fees, is a million dollars or less. Leahy: I could care less what your budget is for lobbying. The fact is you opposed legislation that might require notifying consumers, might actually give consumers the ability to respond when they’ve been hurt. Are you going to—is Equifax going to continue to fight consumers’ right to know? Smith: One, I’m unaware of that particular lobbying effort you’re referring to. I can talk to the company, but I’m unaware of that particular lobbying effort. Leahy: It was in your report that you have to file on your lobbying expenses. 1:03:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Do consumers have the right to find out what kind of information data brokers like Equifax has on them? Richard Smith: Do they have the right? Hirono: Yeah, yes. Can they call Equifax up and say, what do you have on me? Smith: Every consumer has the right to a free credit report from us, from the industry, and that credit report would detail all the information that the credit file would have on them. Hirono: But that’s just their credit, but you have a lot of other information on everybody besides just their credit information, do you not? Smith: Yes, we do. Hirono: So, if—and my understanding is that you get all this information free. You don’t pay anybody for the information you gather on 145 million people, which is more than one out of three people in our entire country. Smith: It’s largely free. There are exceptions, obviously, but this business, as you know, we’re 118 years old. We’re part of a federally regulated ecosystem that enables consumers to get access to credit. Hirono: Yes. Smith: So that data’s there, and it’s used at their consent, by the way. Regardless of the type of data we have—if it’s your employment data or your income data or your credit data—that data can only be accessed if you as a consumer give the consent for someone to access that. Hirono: How does one give consent— Smith: If you— Hirono: —if you’re selling the information that you have on them? Smith: So, if you as a consumer go to your bank and want to get a credit card, for example, when you sign a contract with the bank for the credit card, you’re allowing the bank the access to approve your credit, in this particular case, to give you the best rate and the best line. 1:17:52 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Can you guarantee this committee that no consumer will ever be required to go to arbitration? Richard Smith: I cannot, sir. Blumenthal: Why? Smith: Well, one, I’m no longer with the company. I can talk to the management team. Blumenthal: Well, that’s what I mean by the designated fall guy. You know, you’re here, you can’t speak for the company. I’m interested in looking forward. How will consumers be protected? Will arbitration be required of them? Will they be compensated for the sense of security that has been lost? Will there be a compensation fund? Will there be insurance against that kind of loss? And I’m talking about a compensation fund that applies to them because of that loss of privacy. These kinds of questions, which you’re unable to answer because you’re no longer with the company, are as profound and important as any investigative effort looking back, and I recognize you’re here without the authority to make these decisions, but I think someone from the company has to make them. Hearing: ; Senate Banking Committee; October 4, 2017 Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO of Equifax 6:03 Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH): But security doesn’t generate short-term profits. Protecting consumers apparently isn’t important to your business model, so you gather more and more information, you peddled it to more and more buyers. For example, you bought a company called TALX so you could get access to detailed payroll information—the hours people worked, how much they were paid, even where they lived—7,000 businesses. You were hacked there, too, exposing the workers of one proud Ohio company—400,000 workers at Kroger—and an unknown number of people’s information to criminals who used it to commit tax fraud. 26:35 Sen. Ben Sasse (NE): Your organization has committed to providing identity-monitoring services for the next year, but I’m curious about whether or not Equifax and your board have deliberated. Do you think your responsibility ends in one year, in two years, in five years, in 10 years; and if you think it ends at some point, have you tried to think about the goodwill and balance sheet impact of all this? How can you explain to an American whose identity might be stolen later because of this breach why your responsibility would ever end? Does it end? Richard Smith: I understand the question. And it extends well beyond a year, Senator. The first step we took was the five services we mentioned to the chairman a minute ago, which gets the consumer through one year. The ultimate control for security for a consumer is going to the lifetime lock. The ability for a consumer to lock down his or her file, determine who they want to have access for life— Sasse: But isn’t this—just to interrupt—isn’t that about people who might be breached in the future. I’m talking about the 145 million whose data has already been stolen. Does your responsibility end, or what do you think your legal obligations are to them? Smith: I think the combination of the five services we’re offering combined with the lifetime lock is a good combination of services. Sasse: I actually think the innovation of some of the stuff you proposed for the big three going forward is quite interesting, but why does any of that five really do much for the data that’s already been stolen? Smith: Senator, again, the combination of the five offerings today plus the lifetime lock we think is the best offering for the consumer. Sasse: Okay, I don’t think you’ve really answered the question about whether or not you’re exposure legally ends for the 145 million. 29:13 Sen. Ben Sasse (NE): I want to open, at least, the allegations that Equifax executives engaged in insider trading relating to knowledge of this cyber breach. One of the clearest times in definitions of insider trading occurs when a business executive trades their company stock because of confidential knowledge that they have gained from their job. I’m sure you can imagine why Americans are very mad about the possibility that this occurred here. While insider trading is going to be discussed a lot more later in this hearing, I wish you could just very quickly give us a timeline of the first steps. When did Equifax first learn of the May 2017 breach, and when did you inform the FBI of that breach? Richard Smith: Thank you. I’ll answer as quickly as I can. We notified the FBI cybersecurity forensic team and outside global law firm on August 2. At that time, all we saw was suspicious activity. We had no indication, as I said in my oral testimony, of a breach at that time. You might recall that the three individuals sold stock on August 1 and 2. We did not have an indication of a breach until mid- to late August. Sasse: So you’re saying that those three executives—Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop—you’re saying those three executives had no knowledge of a breach on August 1 or 2. Smith: To the best of my knowledge, they had no knowledge and they also followed our protocol to have their stock sales cleared through the proper channels, which is our general counsel. 32:00 Sen. Jon Tester (MT): Let’s fast forward to the 29th of July, and you learned for the first time that your company has been hacked—don’t know how big the hack is, but it’s been hacked—and it was preceded by this notification from US-CERT. Three days after, as Senator Sasse pointed out, you had three high-level execs sell $2 million in stock. That very same day, you notified the FBI of the breach. Can you tell me if your general counsel was held accountable for allowing this stock sale to go forward? Or did he not know about the breach. Richard Smith: Senator, clarification: On the 29th and 30th, a security person saw suspicious activity, shut the portal down on the 30th. There was no indication of a breach at that time. The internal forensics began on the 30th. On the 2nd we brought in outside cyber experts—forensic auditors, law firm, and the FBI. The trades took place on the 1st and the 2nd. At that time, the general counsel, who clears the stock sales, had no indication—or to the company—of a security breach. Tester: Well, I’ve got to tell you something, and this is just a fact, and it may have been done with the best of intentions and no intent for insider trading, but this really stinks. I mean, it really smells really bad. And I guess smelling bad isn’t a crime. But the bottom line here is that you had a hack that you found out about on the 29th. You didn’t know how severe it was. You told the FBI about the breach. On that same day, high-level execs sell $2 million worth of stock, and then you do some investigation, evidently, and you find out at the end of the month that—or, at least, by the first part of September—that this is a huge hack, and you finally notify the public. And as was pointed out already in this committee, these are people that didn’t ask for your service. You’ve gathered it. And now it’s totally breached. And then, as Senator Sasse said, what’s the length of exposure here, and you said, we’ll be doing these five things. That’s proactive, and I think we can all applaud those efforts. But I’ve got to tell you, that doesn’t do a damn thing for the people who have had their identity stolen and their credit rating stolen. So let me ask you this: So their credit rate goes up a little bit, and they go buy a house for 250,000 bucks on a 30-year note, and it costs them 25 grand. Are you liable for that? Smith: Senator, I understand your anger and your frustration. We’ve apologized for the breach, we’ve done everything in our power to make it right for the consumer, and we think these services we’re offering is a right first step. 53:57 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA): In August, just a couple of weeks before you disclosed this massive hack, you said—and I want to quote you here—“Fraud is a huge opportunity for us. It is a massive, growing business for us.” Now, Mr. Smith, now that information for about 145 million Americans has been stolen, is fraud more likely now than before that hack? Richard Smith: Yes, Senator, it is. Warren: Yeah. So the breach of your system has actually created more business opportunities for you. For example, millions of people have signed up for the credit-monitoring service that you announced after the breach—Equifax is offering one year of free credit monitoring—but consumers who want to continue that protection after the first year will have to pay for it, won’t they, Mr. Smith. Smith: Senator, the best thing a consumer could do is get the lifetime lock. Warren: I’m asking you the question. You’re offering free credit monitoring, which you say is worth something, and you’re offering it for only one year. If consumers want it for more than one year, they have to pay for it. Is that right? Smith: Yes, Senator. But the most, the best thing a consumer can do is the lock product. It’s better than monitoring. Warren: Okay, but, they’re going to have to pay after one year if they want your credit monitoring, and that could be a lot of money. So far, seven and a half million people have signed up for free credit monitoring through Equifax since the breach. If just one million of them buy just one more year of monitoring through Equifax at the standard rate of $17 a month, that’s more than $200 million in revenue for Equifax because of this breach. But there’s more. LifeLock, another company that sells credit monitoring, has now seen a 10-fold increase in enrollment since Equifax announced the breach. According to filings with the SEC, LifeLock purchases credit monitoring services from Equifax; and that means someone buys credit monitoring through LifeLock, LifeLock turns around and passes some of that revenue directly along to Equifax. Is that right, Mr. Smith? Smith: That is correct. Warren: That’s correct. Okay. The second Equifax announced this massive data breach, Equifax has been making money off consumers who purchased their credit monitoring through LifeLock. Now, Equifax also sells products to businesses and government agencies to help them stop fraud by potential identity thieves. Is that right, Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, Senator. There’s one clarification. You’d mentioned the LifeLock relationship— Warren: Uh-huh. Smith: —which was accurate. At the same time, the majority of that revenue we normally generate is direct to consumer. We’ve shut that down. We’re no longer selling consumer product directly. Warren: I’m sorry. My question is, every time somebody buys through LifeLock—and they’ve seen a 10-fold increase since the breach—you make a little more money. We actually called the LifeLock people to find this out. So, I asked you the question, but I already know the answer. It’s true. You’re making money off this. So, let me go to the third one. Equifax sells products to businesses and government agencies to help them stop fraud by potential identity thieves, right? Smith: To the government, yes. Not to the business. Warren: You don’t sell to businesses? Just small businesses? Smith: We sell business, but it’s not to prevent fraud. That’s not the primary focus or business. Warren: But to stop identity theft, you don’t have any products that you’re touting for identity-theft purposes? Smith: Senator, all I’m saying is the vast majority we do for businesses is not fraud. Warren: Look, you’ve got three different ways that Equifax is making money, millions of dollars, off its own screw up, and meanwhile, the potential costs to Equifax are shockingly low. Consumers can sue, but it turns out that the average recovery for data breaches is less than $2 per consumer, and Equifax has insurance that could cover some big chunk of any potential payment to consumers. So, I want to look at the big picture here. From 2013 until today, Equifax has disclosed at least four separate hacks in which it compromised sensitive personal data. In those four years, has Equifax’s profit gone up? Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, Senator. Warren: Yes, it has gone up, right? In fact, it’s gone up by more than 80% over that time. You know, here’s how I see this, Mr. Chairman. Equifax did a terrible job of protecting our data because they didn’t have a reason to care to protect our data. The incentives in this industry are completely out of whack. Because of this breach, consumers will spend the rest of their lives worrying about identity theft. Small banks and credit unions will have to pay to issue new credit cards, businesses will lose money to thieves, but Equifax will be just fine. Heck, it could actually come out ahead. Consumers are trapped, there’s no competition, nowhere else for them to go. If we think Equifax does a lousy job protecting our data, we can’t take our data to someone else. Equifax and this whole industry should be completely transformed. Consumers—not you—consumers should decide who gets access to their own data. And when companies like Equifax mess up, senior executives like you should be held personally accountable, and the company should pay mandatory and severe financial penalties for every consumer record that’s stolen. Mr. Chairman, we’ve got to change this industry before more people are injured. 1:22:00 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): It just seems incongruent to me that you have my information—you don’t pay me for it; you don’t have my permission — you make money collecting that information, selling it to businesses — and I think you do a service there; don’t misunderstand me — and you also come to me—you can’t run your business without me; my data is the product that you sell — and you also offer me a premium service to make sure that the data you’re collecting about me is accurate. I mean, I don’t pay extra in a restaurant to prevent the waiter from spitting in my food. You understand my concern? Richard Smith: I understand your point, I believe, but another way to think about that is the monitoring part that you’re referring to, Senator? Kennedy: Uh-huh. Smith: In the future, it’s far less required if you as a consumer have the ability to freeze, or lock as we call it, and unlock your file. And that is free for life. Kennedy: But it’s not just the freeze part. What if you had bad information about me? Have you ever—has an agency ever had bad information about you, and you had to go through the process of correcting it? Smith: Yes, Senator. There’s a process that if— Kennedy: It’s a pain in the elbow, isn’t it. I mean, the burden’s kind of on – you have my data, which you haven’t paid me for. You’re earning a good living, which I don’t deny you. I believe in free enterprise. I think this is a very clever business model you’ve come up with. But you’re earning your money by selling my data, which you get from me and don’t pay me for, to other people, but if the data is wrong that you have about me, I would think you would want to make it as easy as possible to correct it, not as hard as possible. Smith: I understand your point, and it’s an important point for the entire industry to make the process as consumer-friendly as possible if there’s an error on your utility bill, if there’s an error on your bank bill, your credit card statement, to work with consumers to make— Kennedy: Well, can you commit to me today that Equifax is going to set up a system where a consumer who believes that Equifax has bad information about him can pick up the phone and call a live human being with a beating heart and say, here’s this information you have about me that you’re selling to other people—you’re ruining my credit, and it’s not true, and I want to get it corrected. How are you going to correct it, what information do you need from me to prove that it’s incorrect, and when are you going to get back to me, and give me your name and phone number so I can call you. Smith: Senator, I understand your point. There is a process that exists today. More than half— Kennedy: Yeah, and it’s difficult, Mr. Smith. Smith: Be more than happy to get the company to reach out to your staff, explain what we do, and what we’re doing to improve that process. I hear you. Hearing: ; House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; October 3, 2017 Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO at Equifax 5:13 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL): The Equifax data breach was massive in scale: 145.5 million American victims as of yesterday. I would call it shocking, but is it really? We have these under-regulated, private, for-profit credit reporting agencies collecting detailed personal and financial information about American consumers. It’s a treasure trove for hackers. Consumers don’t have a choice over what information Equifax or, for example, TransUnion or Experian, have collected, stored, and sold. If you want to participate in today’s modern economy; if you want to get a credit card, rent an apartment, or even get a job often, then a credit reporting agency may hold the key. Because consumers don’t have a choice, we can’t trust credit reporting agencies to self-regulate. It’s not like when you get sick at a restaurant and decide not to go there anymore. Equifax collects your data, whether you want to have it collected or not. If it has incorrect information about you, it’s really an arduous process—I’ve tried it—to get it corrected. When it comes to information security, you are at the mercy of whatever Equifax decides is right; and once your information is compromised, the damage is ongoing. Given vast quantities of information and lack of accountability, a major breach at Equifax, I would say, would be predictable if not inevitable. I should really say breaches. This is the third major breach Equifax has had in the past two years. From media reports and the subcommittee’s meeting with Equifax officials after the breach, it’s clear to me that the company lacked appropriate policies and practices around data security. This particular breach occurred when hackers exploited a known vulnerability that was not yet patched. It was months later before Equifax first discovered the breach, and it was another several weeks before Equifax shared news with consumers, this committee, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senior officials at the company are saying they weren’t immediately aware that the breach occurred, and yet, by the way, there were executives who sold over a million dollars in stock just days after the breach was discovered but, yet, not reported. And for a lot of Americans, that just doesn’t pass the smell test. 22:45 Richard Smith: We know now that this criminal attack was made possible because of combination of human error and technological error. The human error involved the failure to apply a software patch to our dispute portal in March of 2017. Technological error involved a scanner which failed to detect that vulnerability on that particular portal. Both errors have since been addressed. On July 29 and July 30, suspicious activity was detected, and a team followed our security-incident protocol. The team immediately shut down the portal and began our internal security investigation. On August 2, we hired top cybersecurity, forensic, and legal experts, and at that time, we notified the FBI. At that time, to be clear, we did not know the nature or the scope of the incident. It was not until late August that we concluded that we had experienced a major breach. 47:53 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): All right, during your tenure at Equifax, you expanded the company’s business into packaging and selling other people’s data, and in that August 17 speech, you explained that having free data with a gross margin of profit of about 90% is—and I quote—“a pretty unique model.” And I get that this unique model is a good deal for Equifax, but can you explain how it’s a good deal for consumers? Richard Smith: Thank you, Congressman. I think I understand the question. Our industry has been around for a number of years, as you know. In fact, Equifax is a 118-year-old company. We’re part of a federally regulated ecosystem that enables consumers to get access to credit when they want access to credit and, hopefully, at the best rates available to them at that time. So we’re very vital to the flow of economy, not just in the U.S. but around the world. Pallone: All right, I want to turn to what Equifax is offering consumers in the wake of this breach, specifically the free credit-lock service that is supposed to be introduced next year. We’ve been told that this free credit-lock service could require consumers to consent to Equifax sharing or selling the information it collects from the service to third parties with whom the individual already has a business relationship for marketing or other purposes. Is that true? Smith: This product will be a web-enabled, mobile-enabled application that will allow a consumer at a time he or she, if they decide they want access to credit, can simply toggle on, toggle off that application to give the bank, credit card issuer, auto lender, access to their credit file to approve their loan. Pallone: Well, by agreeing to use the Equifax’s lock service, will consumers also be opting in to any additional marketing arrangements, either via Equifax or any of its partners? Smith: Congressman, we’re trying to change the paradigm. What I mean by that is, this will be in an environment viewed as a service, a utility, not a product. But we know cross-selling, upselling, or any products available to the consumer, when they go to get and sign up for the lock product, it’s a service to them, and that’s the only product—this service they’ll be able to get. Pallone: Will Equifax give consumers an easy and free method to choose not to share their data in this way, even if the consumer already has a business relationship with the third party? Smith: Yeah, Congressman, I’d envision as this evolves over time, the consumer will have the ability to invite into their world who they want to have access and who they do not. It’ll be their choice, their power, not ours, to make that decision. Pallone: Now, last week, the interim CEO announced that by January 31 of 2018 Equifax would make locking and unlocking of a person’s Equifax credit report free forever. A credit-report lock is already included in TrustedID Premier and other services like credit monitoring and identity-theft insurance. Will that still end after one year? Smith: Congressman, a couple of differences. Number one, the product we offer today for consumers protects the consumer at the same-level protection they’d get January 31. The difference is, today is a browser-enabled product, or service; the 31 of January it’ll be an application, much simpler and easier for the consumer to use. The protection is largely the same. So they get this free service when they sign up for one year. At the end of the one year, effective January 31 of 2018, it goes into the new lock product. Pallone: I guess the difference, other than not expiring, between the credit-report lock that is part of TrustedID Premier and the credit-locking tool that will be available in January, why not just extend the freeze program? Smith: There’s a difference between the freeze product, which came to pass with FACTA back in 2003, passed into law in 2004, that is now governed by state laws in all states, and it’s a cumbersome process for a consumer. In many cases, some states require you to mail in your request for a freeze and that we must mail you a PIN, so your ability to get access to credit when you want credit is encumbered. A consumer could go to a car dealer or to a bank to get a credit card, forget his or her PIN on a freeze product, have to go back home, look for the PIN, mail the PIN in, so it’s a cumbersome process. The lock product we’re offering today is a big step forward; lock product for the 31 of January is an even further step forward. 53:00 Rep. Joe Barton (TX): Mr. Smith, what’s the market value of Equifax? What’s your company worth, or your former— Richard Smith: Congressman, last time I checked it’s somewhere close to 13 billion. Barton: Thirteen billion. I’m told by my staff that this latest data breach was about 143 million people. Is that right? Smith: We were informed yesterday from the company that is typical in a forensic audit, there was some slight movement and the numbers adjusted. Press release came out from the company last night. It’s 145.5. Barton: A hundred—well, okay, I appreciate your accuracy there. But under current law, you’re basically required to alert each of those that their account has been hacked, but there’s really no penalty unless there is some sort of a lawsuit filed and the Federal Trade Commission or state attorney general files a class-action lawsuit against your company. So you really only notify—you’re just required to notify everybody and say so sorry, so sad. I understand that your company has to stay in business, has to make money, but it would seem to me that you might pay a little bit more attention to security if you had to pay everybody whose account got hacked a couple thousand bucks or something. What would the industry reaction be to that if we passed a law that did that? Smith: Congressman, I understand your question. I think the path that we were on when I was there and the company’s continued is the right path, and that’s a path, a line that the consumers to control the power of who and when accesses a credit file going forward, taking the— Barton: Well, a consumer can’t control the security of your system. Smith: That is true, sir, but they can control— Barton: And your security people knew there was a problem, and according to staff briefings that I’ve been a part of, they didn’t act in a very expeditious fashion until the system had already been hacked. And, I mean, you’re to be commended for being here. I don’t think we subpoenaed you. I think you appeared voluntarily, which shows a commendable amount of integrity on your part, but I’m tired of almost every month there’s another security breach, and it’s okay, we have to alert you. I checked my file to see if I was one of the ones that got breached, and apparently I wasn’t. I don’t know how I escaped, but I didn’t get breached, but my staff person did, and we looked at her reports last night, and the amount of information that’s collected is way beyond what you need to determine if she (audio glitch) for a consumer loan. Basically, her entire adult history, going back 10 years, everywhere she’s lived, her name, her date of birth, her social security number, her phone numbers, her addresses, her credit card, student loans, security-clearance applications for federal employment, car insurance, even employment history of jobs that she worked when she was in high school. That’s not needed to determine whether she’s worthy of getting a five-thousand-dollar credit card loan or something. And now it’s all out in the netherworld of whoever hacked it. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but I think it’s time at the federal level to put some teeth into this and some sort of a per-account payment—and, again, I don’t want to drive credit bureaus out of business and all of that, but we could have this hearing every year from now on if we don’t do something to change the current system. 58:42 Rep. Ben Lujan (NM): Will Equifax be willing to pay for this freeze at Experian and TransUnion for consumers whose information was stolen? Richard Smith: You’re referring to the freeze or the lock? Lujan: You said they’re the same, so… Smith: Yeah, right now we offer a free lock product, as you know, for one year, and then a free lifetime lock product for life, starting January 31, 2018. Smith: And that also extends to Experian and TransUnion? Smith: No, sir, it does not. Lujan: Would Equif—let me repeat the question. Will Equifax be willing to pay for that freeze, for that lock, at Experian and TransUnion for consumers whose information was stolen by it—through Equifax? Smith: Congressman, the company’s come out with what they feel is a comprehensive five different services today and a lifetime lock. I would encourage, to be clear, I would encourage TransUnion and Experian to do the same. It’s time we change the paradigm, give the power back to the consumer to control who accesses his or her credit data. It’s the right thing to do. Lujan: Okay, I’m down to limited time, Mr. Smith. I apologize. I’ll take that as a no that Equifax will not pay for Experian and TransUnion consumers. 1:26:09 Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI): Why do consumers have to pay you to access their credit report? Why should that data not be free? Richard Smith: Congresswoman, the consumer has the ability to access the credit report for free from each of the three credit reporting agencies once a year, and you combine that with the ability to lock your credit file for life for free. Again, it’s a step forward. 2:00:40 Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN): Is it possible people who never signed up or used Equifax directly could have been impacted by the breach? Richard Smith: Yes, Congressman. Bucshon: Okay, so how does Equifax get the information on people who’ve never directly associated with Equifax at all? I mean, I’m not familiar with that. Smith: Yeah, we get it from banks, telecommunications companies, credit card issuers, so on and so forth. Bucshon: So just like we go to apply for a loan, they send you the information, because they want to get a data—they want to get the information on my credit rating, for example. Smith Correct. As I define it, we are part of the federally regulated ecosystem— Bucshon: Yeah. Smith: —that enables banks to loan money to consumers. Bucshon: Right. So, it’s up to the banks, at that point, to notify the individual which credit agencies they’re utilizing to assess their credit risk? Or is it up to the credit agencies? Smith: Traditionally, the contributors of data—in that case, Congressman, the banks would give their data to all three. That’s the benefit of the system is you get a holistic view of an individual’s credit risk. Bucshon: Yeah. My point is, I guess, because a lot of people I talk to back in Indiana, southern Indiana, have no idea who Equifax is, right? And many of those people have applied for home loans and other things. And a matter of fact, probably at some point you have their information, but they may or may not have been notified who sent the information to them—probably the bank or other agency—and that’s something I think that is also maybe an issue, that people don’t understand or have not been told who is being used to assess their credit risk and, hence, something like this happens, they have no idea whether or not their information has been compromised. Smith: I understand your point. Bucshon: Yeah. 2:09:20 Rep. Gene Green (TX): Mr. Smith, Equifax customers or businesses who purchase data and credit reports on consumers, the American public is essentially Equifax’s product. How many times per year on average does Equifax sell access to a given individual’s credit file to a potential creditor, and how much do they make every time they sell it? Richard Smith: If I understand the question, Congressman, we take the data that is given to us by the credit ecosystem of the U.S., add analytics to it, and then when a consumer wants credit—again, through a credit card, home loan, a car—the bank then comes to us for that data and for that analytics, and we charge them for that. **Green: Okay. Well, the question was, how many times does Equifax receive payment for that individual credit file? Every time—if my local car dealer contacts Equifax, and so they pay a fee to Equifax for that information. Smith: Yes, Congressman. If you as an individual want to go to that car dealership and get a loan for a car, they come to us or to competitors, and when they take your data, access your data, we do get paid for it, correct. 2:47:40 Richard Smith: If there’s one thing I’d love to see this country think about is the concept of a social security number in this environment being private and secure, I think it’s time as a country to think beyond that. What is a better way to identify consumers in our country in a very secure way, and I think that way is something different than an SSN, a date of birth, and a name. 2:56:28 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL): What if I want to opt out of Equifax? I don’t want you to have my information anymore. I want to be in control of my information. I never opted in, I never said it was okay to have all my information, and now I want out. I want to lock out Equifax. Can I do that? Richard Smith: Congresswoman, that requires a much broader discussion around the rules of credit reporting agencies because that data, as you know today, doesn’t come from the consumer; it comes from the furnishers, and the furnishers provide that data to the entire industry. Schakowsky: No, I understand that. And that’s exactly where we need to go, to a much larger discussion, because most Americans really don’t know how much information, what it is that you have it, and they never said okay. Video: , YouTube, December 3, 2015 Hearing: ; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; December 18, 2013 Witnesses: Tony Hadley: Senior VP of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Experian 47:13 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (retired) (WV): So, Mr. Hadley, what does your company—or why does it single out and sell lists of economically vulnerable groups like immigrants, widows, and military personnel? 48:03 Tony Hadley: Thank you, Senator. We would be very concerned if lenders were using that information for scamming purposes, too. And we have processes and procedures in place to ensure that nobody gains access to that score for that purpose. Now— Sen. Jay Rockefeller: And how does that work? Hadley: We have an onboarding system by which we take on a client that gets our information to know who they are, and we also have a mail-piece review process to know what they’re going to offer the consumer. And if it’s anything that looks discriminatory or predatory, we will not provide our list to them. Now— Rockfeller: And this is your self-regulation. Hadley: This is our self-regulation under DMA standards. So if we were to violate that, we’d be in violation of our self-regulatory standards as well as our contractual standards with our clients. Now, what’s important here is that there are somewhere between 45 and 50 million Americans who are outside the mainstream of the credit markets in the United States. These are underbanked, underserved consumers who financial institutions cannot reach through credit scoring and credit report. They don't have financial identities or a big enough or even the presence of a credit file in order to bring them into the mainstream of financial markets. But that doesn't mean that they don't need access to financial services. So banks use this data to try to reach out to consumers who they can help to empower them, not to scam them. We don't want to do business with financial institutions who are trying to scam people, only to empower them. And this is their best way to find those individuals who are outside the mainstream—immigrants; new to credit, like recent college graduates, exactly what we’re talking about here—to give them an offer, an invitation to apply, so that then they can make an eligibility determination regarding that application under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But this is marketing literature, not eligibility determination. Rockefeller: Who— Hadley: Can I add to that for you? Rockefeller: Not entirely. Can you tell me which are the companies that buy this ChoiceScore product from you? We’ve asked you that. Hadley: Yeah. They would be banks and financial institutions and members of the financial community. Rockefeller: That’s what’s called a general answer. Hadley: Yeah. I can't tell you who our clients are. That’s a proprietary list of ours. It’s like our secret ingredient. The ones who would want that most are our competitors. And our counsel has informed me that they don't believe that our ability to give that to you can be shielded from disclosure through the rules of the Senate. If we thought they could be—for example, under a law enforcement action, where it could be shielded and protected from FOIA or other disclosures, we could do that, but not under the situation—under the rules of the Senate. And we’re very sorry about that, but we just simply can't do that. Our counsel won't let us. 1:25:49 Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO): The case, Mr. Hadley, of Experian and Superget. You purchased the company Court Ventures in 2012, in the spring of 2012. For more than a year after the time you purchased this company that had all this data, you were taking monthly wire transfers from Singapore, and your company did nothing. And as it turns out, those wire transfers were coming from a man in Vietnam who specialized in identity theft and was marketing the information that you owned to criminals to ruin people's lives. So my first question to you is, you were quoted as saying, “We would know who was buying this.” You were getting wire transfers from Singapore on a monthly basis, and no one bothered to check to see who that was? Hadley: Now, I want to be clear that this was not Experian marketing data; this was Experian authentication data. So it’s under a different company, a different use. So that’s just—I want you to know that it’s not marketing data. McCaskill: I don't understand the distinction. I think it’s a distinction— Jay Rockefeller: Nor do I. McCaskill: —without a difference. I believe it was data that you owned, Experian owned. You’d purchased this data from Court Scan, and they had, in fact— Hadley: No. Let me clarify. McCaskill: —sold it to someone else. Hadley: Yeah, let me clarify that for you, because we’ve provided a full response to that question to the Committee, and it’s part of the eight submissions that we’ve given. And I do have to say that it’s an unfortunate situation, and the incident is still under investigation by law enforcement agencies. So I’m really extremely limited in what I can say publicly about it, but I do want to say this. The suspect in the case obtained data controlled by a third party—that was U.S. Info Search. That was not an Experian company—through a company we bought, Court Ventures— McCaskill: Okay. Let— Hadley: —prior to the time that we acquired that company. And to be clear, no Experian data was ever accessed in that deal. McCaskill: Well, I understand what you’re saying. Here’s what happened: You had U.S. Info Search— Hadley: No, we did not own— McCaskill: No, no; I’m— U.S. Info Search existed, and Court Ventures existed. Hadley: And they had a partnership. McCaskill: —they decided, for commercial reasons, to make more money, to combine their information. Hadley: To resell their information. McCaskill: And so they had a sharing agreement, those two companies, correct? Hadley: Right, right. McCaskill: Okay. So these two companies had a sharing agreement. Then you bought one of those companies. Hadley: Court Ventures. McCaskill: Correct. So now you owned it. Now you stood in their place. Are you a lawyer? Hadley: I’m not a lawyer, but I understand we stood in their place, right. McCaskill: Are there any lawyers on the panel? Okay; she’ll back me up. You stand in their place when you buy this. So now you’re there. Now, you said in your earlier testimony, we would know who was buying this. So you now are part of their transactions. Hadley: During— McCaskill: And you were receiving the benefit of these monthly wire. Hadley: So, during the due-diligence process, we didn't have total access to all the information we needed in order to completely vet that. And by the time we learned about the malfeasance, I think nine months had expired. The Secret Service came to us, told us of the incident, and we immediately began cooperating with the Secret Service to bring this person to justice. McCaskill: Okay. Hadley: And we’re continuing to cooperate with law enforcement in that realm. This was—we were a victim and scammed by this person. McCaskill: Well, I would say the people who had all their identity stolen were the victims. Hadley: And we know who they are, and we’re going to make sure that they’re protected. There’s been no allegation that any harm has come, thankfully, in this scam. McCaskill: Okay. Hadley: And we’ve closed that down, and— Rockefeller: Let Senator McCaskill continue. Hadley: —and we’ve modified our processes to ensure that [unclear]— Rockefeller: Let Senator McCaskill continue. McCaskill: Okay. So let's talk about that process. This person got—this man who they lured to Guam to arrest and who is now facing criminal charges in New Hampshire, they posed as an American-based private investigator. What is your vetting process when people want to buy your stuff? Hadley: That would’ve been Court Ventures who would have vetted that prior to our acquisition. McCaskill: Okay, but I’m talking about now, you. What is your vetting process? Hadley: Right now, before we would allow acc—first, let me say that that person would have not gained access to Experian or this data if they had gone through our vetting processes prior to the acquisition. McCaskill: And what would’ve stopped him? Hadley: We would’ve known who that company is. We would’ve had a physical onsite inspection of that company. We would’ve known who that business is and what that business's record is. We would’ve known exactly why they wanted that data and for what purposes. And that would have been enshrined in our contract. And we would’ve known the kinds of systems they have in place to protect the data that they gained. Those are all incumbent upon us under the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act and the FCRA. McCaskill: Well, listen, I understand that this was not a crime that began under your watch. Hadley: Thank you. McCaskill: But you did buy the company, and you did keep getting the wire transfers from Singapore, and the only reason you ever questioned them is because the Secret Service knocked on your door. I don't know how long those wire transfers from Singapore would’ve gone on until you caught them. I don't have confidence that it would’ve stopped at all. So I guess what my point is here, I maybe do not feel as strongly as others on this panel that behavioral marketing is evil. I believe behavioral marketing is a reality, and, frankly, the only reason we have everything we have on the Internet for free is because of behavioral marketing. So I don't see behavioral marketing as an evil into itself. What I do see is some desperate need for Congress to look at how consumers can get this information, what kind of transparency is there, and whether or not companies that allow monthly wire transfers into their coffers from Singapore from a criminal who is trying to rip off identity theft, whether or not they should be held liable for no due diligence on checking those wire transfers from Singapore until the Secret Service knocked on their door. And that’s what I think we need to be looking at. And I don't think there’s enough—I mean, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, you say trial lawyers, and they break out in a sweat. But the truth is that if there was some liability in this area, it would be amazing how fast people could clean up their act. And, unfortunately, in too many instances there’s not clear liability because we haven't set the rules of the road. Video: , YouTube, October 3, 2009. Hearing: ; House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; July 30, 2008. Witnesses: Thomas Quinn: Vice President of Global Scoring at Fair Isaac Business Consulting Stan Oliai: Experian Decision Analytics Consulting Senior Vice President Chet Wiermanski: Transunion Credit Services Analytical Systems Vice President Richard Goerss: Equifax Credit Services Chief Privacy Officer Evan Hendricks: Privacy Times Publisher and Editor 26:42 Thomas Quinn: A FICO score is a three-digit number ranging from 300 to 850, where the higher the score, the lower the risk. Lenders use the score, along with other information, to decision the request for credit, set the credit line and pricing terms. Creating the FICO score model requires two samples of credit reports, two years apart, for the same randomly selected depersonalized set of consumers provided by one of the national credit reporting agencies. Those credit factors found to be most powerful and consistent in predicting credit performance, individually and in combination, form the basis for the complex mathematical algorithm which becomes the score. The traditional FICO score model evaluates five broad types of data elements from the consumer credit report. These include, and listed in order of importance, previous credit payment history, about 35 percent contribution; level of outstanding debts, about 30 percent contribution; length of credit history, 15 percent contribution; pursuit of new credit, 10 percent contribution; and mix of type of credit, about 10 percent contribution. FICO scores were first introduced to the marketplace in 1989 and have been consistently redeveloped and updated throughout the years to ensure their predictive strength. 34:00 Stan Oliai: A credit score is a numerical expression of risk of default, based on a credit report. The score is produced by a mathematical formula created from a statistical analysis of a large representative sample of credit reports. The formula is typically called a “model.” The credit score is calculated by the model, using only information in the credit report. These reports include the following types of information: The credit account history—such as was the account paid, was it paid on time, how long has the account been open, and what’s the outstanding balance; the type of account—is it a mortgage, is it an installment, is it revolving; the public record information—liens, judgments, bankruptcies, for example; inquiries in the credit file that represent applications for new credit and other consumer-initiated transactions. A credit report does not include information such as income or assets. It also does not include demographic information such as race or ethnicity. Demographic factors are not used in the calculation of a credit score. 35:05 Stan Oliai: Regulatory oversight of credit scores is accomplished through routine bank examinations for compliance, with a number of laws that govern fair lending, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This makes sense because the lender chooses the scoring model to assist in this proprietary underwriting process. The lender is ultimately responsible for demonstrating to regulators that the scoring model it has chosen complies with the lending laws. 46:20 Chet Wiermanski: There is strong evidence to suggest that consumers would benefit from the increased reporting of nontraditional credit information. For example, consumers with thin credit files and, in particular, minorities, immigrants, young and old, all experience a net benefit from full-file reporting by energy companies and telecommunication providers. Consumers with impaired credit histories also obtain a net benefit from full-file reporting by these companies. We are presently engaged in a follow-up study to learn more about the impediments to full-file reporting faced by the utilities and telecommunication industry. It may be very well that Congress may have a role to play in removing roadblocks to encourage voluntary full-file reporting. 2:01:30 Richard Goerss: There are a lot of thing—different activities—that a consumer can do to protect themselves if they feel they are victims or might be victims of identity theft. Certainly, one of the things that they can do is to place a fraud alert on their credit file. They can receive a free disclosure of their credit file to see if there has been any inappropriate activity or inquiry to their credit file. They can provide an identity-theft report and identify the account information that they feel, or that they say, was opened fraudulently. And under the requirements of the FACT Act, the consumer reporting agencies are going to delete that information, and the consumer reporting agency that receives that identity theft with the information-removal request is going to refer it to the other two consumer reporting agencies, who are also going to remove that information. 2:24:30 Evan Hendricks: Right now, you take it for granted that we know about credit scores, but you have to remember it was, like, 12 years ago, in the mid-1990's, when credit scores started being widely used. They were a complete secret; the industry did not even acknowledge their existence. Then, when they found out about it and reporters like Michelle Singletary of the Washington Post started reporting on it, then they would not disclose the score to you. So, California led the way with a state law, and now we have the FACT Act, which means that you can get one—you can buy a credit score for a fair and reasonable price. 2:54:55 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): We call these credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus, which gives the average consumer the impression that they are dealing with some federal entity, when in fact they are not—we heard this afternoon they’re private or publicly traded companies—and yet this information is so critical, and to Mr. Barrett's comments, who suggested that the consumer needs to be educated, needs to know what goes into their FICO score and what they can do to improve their FICO score, we can't give those kinds of answers, because, for all intents and purposes, it is a proprietary formula. It’s sort of like secret sauce; we don't know what it is. Now, there’s something wrong when the government can't articulate what should be considered in a FICO score. Cover Art Design by Music Presented in this Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD159: Crisis Management

16 oktober 2017 | 147 min

Natural disasters: They just keep coming. In this episode, learn about the disaster relief bill that will soon be law, get an update from Puerto Rico from a member of the Coast Guard, and look into a few new laws that included disaster relief provisions with special guests Jessica Rhodes and Margy Feldhuhn. Also, get the scoop on the existential crisis that Congressional Dish has been experiencing and get a preview of exciting new changes coming soon to your favorite Congress-focused podcast. Please support Congressional Dish to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bills Outline funding for Federal Aviation Administration projects and operations through March 31, 2018 Funds public and private that provide graduate medical education programs and a until March 31 a Medicare program providing in-home treatment of immune diseases until the end of 2020 the Medicare Improvement Fund, by $50 million per year. If people affected by the hurricanes want to withdraw up to $100,000 before January 1, 2019 from their retirement accounts, the 10% tax on early withdrawals from retirement plans . The money can be repaid People with employer plans from the retirement funds for up to $100,000 (double the usual amount) until December 31, 2018. They will get an extra year to pay it back. Allows employers whose employees were affected by the hurricanes to get a who couldn't work up to $6,000 per person Current law allows tax deductions for charitable contributions to churches, private organizations, hospitals, & other organizations as long as these don't make up more than 50% of that person's charitable donations for the year. This is for donations made for Harvey, Irma, and Maria relief. This will if the donation is to a private foundation or to a new fund Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico The Secretary of the Treasury will give the US Virgin Islands money from the hurricane. The government of the US Virgin Islands will determine the amount Puerto Rico will be given money based on for what Puerto Rico would have been given if they had the same tax code. Puerto Rico will not be given the money until Puerto Rico submits a plan that is approved by the Secretary of the Treasury for distributing the payments to the residents. for universities & higher education schools that were affected by the hurricanes or have students affected by the hurricanes. Gives money (Project School Emergency Response to Violence, which helps schools recover from traumatic events) on a $18.67 billion to the DHS and FEMA for their disaster relief fund will be for loans to local governments to provide essential services needed as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, or Maria $526.5 million to the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service for fire suppression $16 billion of National Flood Insurance Program debt $1.27 billion for food for Puerto Rico Changes how bankruptcy court judges are appointed and raises some fees. Passed the House of Representatives on October 12, 2017 by a vote of Additional Reading Article: by The Editors, Bloomberg, October 13, 2017. Article: by christopher Flavelle, Insurance Journal, October 13, 2017. Article: by Niv Elis and Cristina Marcos, The Hill, October 12, 2017 Article: by Alexa Liautaud, Vice News, October 12, 2017. Article: by Aaron Rupar, ThinkProgress, October 12, 2017. Article: by David Dayen, The Intercept, October 11, 2017. Article: by Mike Ward and Kevin Diaz, Houston Chronicle, October 11, 2017. Article: by Catherine E. Murray, AccountingWeb, October 11, 2017. Article: by Aurelie Corinthios and Liz McNeil, People, October 6, 2017. Article: , Fox News, October 5, 2017. Commentary: by Peter Morrison, Lexocology, October 3, 2017. Commentary: by Mary Plotkin, The Hill, January 17, 2017. Article: by Jen Wieczner, Fortune, January 11, 2017. Commentary: by David Dayen, New Republic, November 30, 2016. Article: by David Dayen, New Republic, May 9, 2016. Article: by Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker, February 26, 2015. Article: by A.R. Sanders, E.R. Martin, G.W. Beecham, S. Guo, Cambridge University Press, November 17, 2014. References Bethenny Frankel's Disaster Relief Site: Broad Defense: iab Tech Lab: Twitter: Young Turks Appearance: Young Turks Appearance: Young Turks Appearance: Young Turks Appearance: Young Turks Appearance: Sound Clip Sources Interview: , October 12, 2017. Press Briefing: , CNN Politics, October 3, 2017. Podcast: , Libsyn's The Feed, September 30, 2017. Press Briefing: , September 27, 2017. YouTube Live Stream: , The Broad-Cast, September 27, 2017. Song: , For the Love of Money, lyrics by The Ojays. Music Presented in this Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD158: Rapid DNA Act

23 september 2017 | 97 min

Since 1994, the FBI has maintained a database with samples of DNA taken from convicted criminals in order to match those samples with DNA collected at crime scenes. However, over the course of the last two decades, the DNA database has expanded to include many more people. In this episode, we explore the expansion of DNA collection and storage by law enforcement and examine a new law that will further that trend. Later in the episode, get an update on Congress’s progress in meeting their multiple September 30th deadlines. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bills Outline to create standards and procedures for the use of Rapid DNA machines and the DNA analyses they create. the DNA samples allowed to be stored to include those prepared by any criminal justice agency using Rapid DNA machines that are approved by the FBI. Division A: Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act is now to partner with developing countries and "donors, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental and civil society organizations, including faith-based organizations" to promote education programs and activities to prepare individuals to be "productive members of society and the workforce" "Assistance provided under this section to support programs and activities under this subsection shall be aligned with and advance United States foreign policy and economic interests." Division B: Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 for disaster relief, as long as President Trump officially approves it. the Small Business Administration to lend $450 million for disaster rebuilding but half of that is allowed to be for administrative expenses and additional $7.4 billion for housing and infrastructure in disaster zones Includes a provision that says the recipients of funds "may adopt, without review or public comment, any environmental review, approval, or permit performed by a Federal agency, and such adoption shall satisfy the responsibilities of the recipient with respect to such environmental review, approval or permit." Division C: Temporary Extension of Public Debt Relief the debt ceiling until December 8, 2017. Division D: Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and the funding and provisions from the 2017 funding law until . The .6791% cut will Additional Reading Article: by Meridith McGraw and Maryalice Parks, ABC News, September 20, 2017. Article: by Melanie Zanona, The Hill, September 20, 2017. Commentary: by Thomas Huelskoetter, Fortune, September 20, 2017. Article: , Ripon Advance News Service, September 20, 2017. Transcript: , NPR, September 16, 2017. Article: by Greg Tourial, Roll Call, September 15, 2017. Article: by Amber Phillips and Kim Soffen, The Washington Post, September 8, 2017. Article: by Mike DeBonis, Kelsey Snell, Philip Rucker and Elise Viebeck, The Washington Post, September 7, 2017. Article: by Annie Sciacca, Mercury News, August 25, 2017. Press Release: , IntegenX, August 21, 2017. Article: by Jerry Iannelli, Miami New Times, August 16, 2017. Transcript: , Democracy Now, August 2, 2017. Article: by James S. Henry, The American Interest, July 28, 2017. Article: , Business Wire, April 7, 2016. Article: by Ava Kofman, New Republic, February 24, 2016. Article: by Shane Bauer, Mother Jones, November 20, 2014. Article: by Robert Barnes, The Washington Post, June 3, 2013. Press Release: , Cision PR Newswire, April 1, 2013. Article: by Bradley J. Fikes, San Diego Union Tribune, April 1, 2013. Article: by Jennifer Lynch, Eff, January 6, 2013. Audit Report: , Office of the Inspector General, May 2006. References Cornell Law School: Cornell Law School: Electronic Privacy Information Center: GovTrack: GovTrack: FBI: FBI: FBI: EFF: Federal Register: NCSL: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Integenx: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: Listener Dee Bradley's Blog: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, December 9, 2015. Witness: James Comey - Director, FBI Timestamps & Transcripts 5:07:58 Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT): Last week I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senators Feinstein, Lee, and Gillibrand to update our nation’s laws to take account of this exciting new technology. Now, Rapid DNA devices—they’re self-contained, they’re fully automated instruments that can be placed in booking stations, and they can both develop a DNA profile from a cheek swab and compare the results against existing profiles in less than two hours. Now, my bill, the Rapid DNA Act of 2015, would allow law enforcement officials using FBI-approved Rapid DNA instruments to upload profiles generated by such devices to the FBI's Combined DNA Index System and perform database comparisons. Director Comey, you've spoken in the past about Rapid DNA and how this technology will help law enforcement. Do you believe that Rapid DNA technology is important, how will it impact law enforcement, and do you believe Congress should pass legislation authorizing its use within standards and guidelines promulgated by your agency? Director James Comey: Yeah, that authority that's in your bill would help us change the world in a very, very exciting way, that allow us, in booking stations around the country, if someone's arrested, to know instantly, or near instantly, whether that person is the rapist who's been on the loose in a particular community before they're released on bail and get away, or to clear somebody, to show that they're not the person. It's very, very exciting. We are very grateful that we're going to have the statutory authorization if that passes to connect those Rapid DNA technologies to the national DNA database. Hatch: Well, thank you. My bill, the Rapid DNA Act, will not affect when or under what circumstances law enforcement collects DNA samples. These decisions would be governed by state or other federal law. What it will do is affect where samples are processed and how quickly they're processed. Now, Mr. Director, what would you say to individuals who may be concerned that Rapid DNA technology will raise privacy concerns, and what would you say to individuals who may be concerned that this technology could affect the integrity of FBI's Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS? And I would note that my bill restricts access to CODIS to FBI-approved Rapid DNA instruments operated in accordance with FBI-issued standards and procedures. Comey: The first—you said it well, Senator: folks need to understand this isn't about collecting DNA from more people. It's about the DNA that's collected when someone is arrested, being able to be analyzed much more quickly, that can show us in some cases this is the wrong person or can show us in some cases this is someone we have to be very worried about. That is good for our justice system as a whole. And you're exactly right. The national database, the CODIS database, is the gold standard. This legislation does not make it any—water down the standards that are applied before a DNA result can be pressed against that database. We're still going to have high standards. We're still going to require that this is the gold standard for identification in the United States. Hearing: , House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, June 18, 2015. Witnesses: Amy Hess - Executive Director of Science & Technology at the FBI Jody Wolf - President of the American Society of Criminal Laboratory Directors Natasha Alexenko - Founder of Natasha’s Justice Project Timestamps & Transcripts 6:05 Amy Hess: All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Laboratory, and the FBI contribute DNA records to and participate in NDIS, which contains almost 14 million offender or arrestee DNA records and over 630,000 forensic or crime scene DNA records. 11:06 Jody Wolf: Currently, these devices are best suited for use with single-source, high-quantity biological samples such as referenced standards of blood or saliva from known individuals, thus limiting its usefulness for complex crime scene samples of more than one person. These instruments also currently can’t analyze trace amounts of DNA. Consequently, these instruments are not designed for the routine testing of evidence types found in rape kits and will not help with the reduction of rape kit backlogs. 22:03 Rep. Bob Goodlatte (VA): Would this legislation help speed this up a lot? Jody Wolf: Well, comparing 90 samples utilizing Rapid DNA would take almost 27 hours. Using the—processing it using a traditional existing technology would take 7 to 8 hours. So the limitation with the Rapid DNA is that you can only run 5 samples at a time, whereas on current technology, we can run 24 samples at a time. To process 90 samples utilizing Rapid would take 27 hours. Using existing technology would take 7 to 8. Same result. Goodlatte: So do you think that this is a good thing for people to have the option here, or not? Wolf: It depends on your goal. The advantage that Rapid DNA has is that you have that answer while the person is still in the booking station. With traditional databasing, there’s a delay because you have to transport the sample from point of collection to a laboratory for analysis. Supreme Court Argument: Maryland v. King, February 26, 2013. Witnesses Katherine Winfree - Chief Deputy Attorney General of Baltimore, MD Michael Dreeben - Deputy Solicitor General of the Department of Justice Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 3:24 Katherine Winfree: The cornerstone of our argument is that when an individual is taken into custody, an individual is arrested on a probable cause—a probable-cause arrest—that person, by virtue of being in that class of individuals whose conduct has led the police to arrest him on—based on probable cause, surrenders a substantial amount of liberty and privacy. Justice Elena Kagan: But, Ms. Winfree, that can’t be quite right, can it? I mean, such a person—assume you’ve been arrested for something, the state doesn’t have the right to go search your house for evidence of unrelated crimes. Unknown Speaker: Justice Kagan. Kagan: Isn’t that correct? Winfree: That’s correct, Justice Kagan. Kagan: Doesn’t have the right to go search your car for evidence of unrelated crimes. Winfree: That’s correct. Kagan: Just because you’ve been arrested doesn’t mean that you lose the privacy expectations and things you have that aren’t related to the offense that you’ve been arrested for. Winfree: That’s correct, but what we’re seizing here is not evidence of crime. What it is, is information related to that person’s DNA profile. Those 26 numbers— Kagan: Well—and if there were a real identification purpose for this, then I understand that argument. But if it’s just to solve cold cases, which is the way you started, then it’s just like searching your house to see what’s in your house that could help to solve a cold case. Winfree: Well, I would say there’s a very real distinction between the police generally rummaging in your home to look for evidence that might relate to your personal papers and your thoughts. It’s a very real difference there than swabbing the inside of an arrestee’s cheek to determine what that person’s CODIS DNA profile is. It’s looking only at 26 numbers that tell us nothing more about that individual. Kagan: Well, but, if that’s what you’re basing it on, then you’re not basing it on an arrestee. I mean, then the chief justice is right: it could be any arrestee, no matter how minor the offense. It could be just any old person in the street. Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective? Part 2 0:20 Katherine Winfree: Since 2009, when Maryland began to collect DNA samples from arrestees charged with violent crimes and burglary, there have been 225 matches, 75 prosecutions, and 42 convictions, including that of Respondent King. Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, that’s really good. I’ll bet you, if you conducted a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you’d get more convictions, too. That proves absolutely nothing. Press Briefing: , Attorney General Ashcroft, March 4, 2002. Timestamps & Transcripts 0:33 Attorney General John Ashcroft: Douglas and Laura White were married just 11 days when, walking down a bike path in Mesquite, Texas, in November of 1993, a man jumped out from behind the trees and demanded their money. The frightened couple began to pray, which enraged their attacker. He shot Douglas dead on the scene, raped Laura, and disappeared into the Dallas suburb. Eight years later, in January of 2001, under the federal DNA Backlog Reduction Program, police in Dallas matched a DNA sample taken from Alvin Avon Braziel Jr., with DNA evidence collected from the crime scene. Braziel was convicted of capital murder and given the death sentence. The murder conviction of Alvin Brazil is a powerful example of how one technology, forensic DNA analysis, has revolutionized law enforcement. Over the short span of 10 years, DNA technology has proven itself to be the truth machine of law enforcement, ensuring justice by identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. With a strong support of Congress, the Department of Justice has served as a leader in the national effort to maximize the benefits of DNA evidence, and the past 5 years have seen a national explosion in forensic DNA collection. All 50 states and the federal government now have laws on the books that require DNA to be collected from convicted offenders for the purpose of criminal DNA databasing. The strong trend is toward broader DNA sample collection, including collection from all felons in many states. And the reason is simple: experience has taught law enforcement that the more offenders that are included in the database, the more crimes will be solved. 9:23 Attorney General John Ashcroft: The law enforcement tool that makes this DNA analysis useful to state and local police and prosecutors throughout the nation is the Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS. It’s administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. CODIS brings the power of DNA technology to bear on thousands of law enforcement investigations by integrating information obtained by state DNA databases and making that information available nationwide. House Debate: , May 16, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 8:00 Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner: Like fingerprinting, photographing, and other booking procedures which at the time were novel but now have become routine, Rapid DNA will soon be standard procedure in police stations throughout the country. There is only one problem with Rapid DNA technology: federal law. Our law, written in 1994 when DNA technology was still in its infancy, prohibits the use of Rapid DNA technology in booking stations. This is not because of any limitation in Rapid DNA technology, but simply because at that time Rapid DNA technology was not even contemplated. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD157: Failure to Repeal

11 september 2017 | 125 min

Process: It matters. During the first seven months of the 115th Congress, the Republicans tried - in multiple ways - to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act. We already know what they were trying to do; in this episode, hear the full story of how they tried to get their bills passed into law. Later in the episode, we also do a quick summary of what to expect in September as deadlines related to flood insurance, government funding, marijuana, and many other topics loom. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Jackie Wattles and Chris Isidore, CNN Money, September 8, 2017. Article: by Mary Williams Walsh, The New York Times, August 28, 2017. Article: by Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, July 28, 2017. Article: by Juliet Eilperin, Kelsey Snell, and Sean Sullivan, Bangor Daily News, July 28, 2017. PDF: , The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Article: by Rachel Roubein, The Hill, July 27, 2017. Article: by John Cassidy, The New Yorker, July 27, 2017. Article: by Jessica Estepa, USA Today, July 27, 2017. Article: by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, July 27, 2017. Article: by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, July 26, 2017. Article: by Russell Berman, The Atlantic, July 25, 2017. Article: by Peter Sullivan, The Hill, July 25, 2017. Article: by Robert Pear and Thomas Kaplan, The New York Times, July 21, 2017. Article: by David A. Fahrenthold, The Washington Post, February 1, 2015. Article: , NaturalGas.org, September 20, 2013. Article: by Lori Widmer, Insurance Journal, July 31, 2012. References Consider This! Podcast: Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017: , July 20, 2017 Healthcare Freedom Act of 2017: BCRA: , July 13, 2017 BCRA: , June 22, 2017 GovTrack: , July 25, 2017 GovTrack: , July 25, 2017 GovTrack: GovTrack: GovTrack: National Weather Service: YouTube: Sound Clip Sources Briefing: , July 27, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts Senate Session: Senate Leaders Speak Ahead of Health Care Vote, July 25, 2017. Sound Clip Transcripts Senator Chuck Schumer (NY): Many of us on this side of the aisle have waited for years for this opportunity and thought it would probably never come. Some of us were a little surprised by the election last year, but with a surprise election comes great opportunities to do things we thought were never possible. So all we have to do today is to have the courage to begin the debate with an open amendment process and let the voting take us where it will. Senator John McCain (AZ): Our system doesn’t depend on our nobility. It accounts for our imperfections and gives us an order to our individual strivings that has helped make ours the most powerful and prosperous society on Earth. It is our responsibility to preserve that, and even when it requires us to do something less satisfying than winning, even when we must give a little to get a little, even when our efforts managed just 3 yards in a cloud of dust while critics on both sides denounced us for timidity, for our failure to triumph. I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and, by so doing, better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood. Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We have been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That’s an approach that’s been employed by both sides: mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that it requires. We are getting nothing done, my friends. We’re getting nothing done. And all we’ve really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it—those who support Obamacare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven’t found it yet, and I’m not sure we will. All we’ve managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn’t very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for this bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. Senator Dick Durbin (IL): But there was an interesting thing happened at the end of this. At the very last moment, the very last vote that was cast was cast by Senator John McCain. Everybody knows that John is diagnosed with a serious form of cancer. He made it back from Arizona here to cast his vote, and he asked for 15 minutes after the roll call to make a speech. I don’t think many, if any, senators left the Chamber. Democrats and Republicans stuck around to hear his speech after the vote. Can I tell you that’s unusual in the Senate? Most of us race for the doors and go up to our offices and watch on television and may catch a piece of that speech and a piece of the other speech, but we sat and we listened because of our respect for John McCain. Senator Ron Wyden (OR): Mr. President, the pitch to Republican Senators this afternoon before the first vote was that it was nothing but a little bit of throat clearing — just a first step to get the conversation started. Let’s be clear, nobody can pretend the stakes aren’t real now. In a few minutes, the Senate will be voting on yet another version of the Senate TrumpCare bill. I call it the BCRA 3.0. It features a special gut punch to consumer protection offered by Senator Cruz. Senator Ron Wyden (OR): There was no hearing in the finance committee, no hearing in the HELP committee. Senators are flying in the dark, and as far as I can tell, the proposal is going to be before us without having been scored by the CBO. Senator Ted Cruz (TX): And the Consumer Freedom Amendment was designed to bring together and serve as a compromise for those who support the mandates in Title One. The Consumer FreedomAmendment says that insurance companies, if they offer plans that meet those Title One mandates—all the protections for preexisting conditions—they can also sell any other plan that consumers desire. Senate Session: , July 26, 2017. Sound Clip Transcripts Senator Rand Paul (KY): Today we will vote on a bill we voted on many times. The Senate itself voted on this two years ago. It’s the identical bill. We’re going to vote on a bill we voted two years ago, and I hope everybody that voted for it before will vote for it again. It’s what we call a clean repeal. It’s not cluttered with insurance-company bailouts, it’s not cluttered with this and that and new federal regulations; it is just trying to peel back Obamacare. Now while it is a clean repeal, it is only a partial repeal. Why? It’s only a partial repeal because we have these arcane Senate rules that say we can’t repeal the whole thing. Because we’re only repealing part of it, Obamacare will remain. Senator Rand Paul (KY): My government shouldn’t be telling what I can buy and what I cannot buy. My government should not tell me which doctor I can choose and which doctor I have to leave behind. The government should not be involved in my healthcare business. I want to be left alone. The right to privacy, the right to be left alone, is a fundamental right of Americans. That’s what this is about. Senator Rand Paul (KY): So, are we going to have some government involvement? Yes. But because government is so pitiful at anything they do, we should minimize government’s involvement in any industry. Senator John Cornyn (TX): People keep talking about a secret process. Well, this is about as open and transparent as it gets, and everybody will have an opportunity to offer an amendment, to discuss what’s in the amendment, and to vote on it. Senate Session: , July 27, 2017. Sound Clip Transcripts Senator Chuck Schumer (NY): Mr. President, it is likely, at some point today, we will finally see the majority leader’s final health care bill, the bill he intends to either pass or fail. Thus far, we have been going through a pretense, defeating Republican bills that never had enough support even within their own caucus to pass. Repeal and replace has failed. Repeal without replace has failed. Now we are waiting to see what the majority leader intends for the Republican plan on health care. If the reports in the media are true, the majority leader will offer a skinny repeal as his final proposal. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD156: Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran

21 augusti 2017 | 130 min

On August 2nd, President Trump signed a new law that passed Congress with the overwhelming support of both political parties, which imposes sanctions on three countries: Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In this episode, we examine the new sanctions and the big-picture motivations behind them. In the process, we jump down the rabbit hole of the U.S. involvement in the 2014 regime change in Ukraine. Executive Producers: Joseph Clerici and Anonymous Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Episode Outline to both companies and people who materially contribute to Iran's ballistic missile program. Orders the President to enact sanctions that block property and financial transactions for the . Orders the President to block property and prohibit from the United States any person or company that materially contributes to the transfer to Iran any . Sanctions prohibiting travel to the United States and financial transactions are The President can by notifying Congress. "It is the sense of Congress that the President should continue to uphold and seek unity with European and other key partners on sanctions implemented against the Russian Federation, which have been effective and instrumental in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine" Orders the President to submit reports outlining his reasons to Congress relating to Russia, Ukraine, and Syria The President on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria within 30 days of submitting his report unless a branch of Congress passes a resolution to allow it. Makes subject to sanctions. Limits to Russian industries. Prohibits the transfer of goods & services (except banking) that support new . Russians need to be have a 33% share or more in the company for the sanctions to apply. to enact sanctions in situations when it was previously optional. to enact sanctions on companies and individuals who provide materials to Russia for energy export pipelines valued at $1 million or more. to block property and deny visas to anyone who provides the government of Syria financial, material, or technical support for getting almost any kind of weapon. The to products for Russia that are for space launches. for a "Countering Russian Influence Fund" which will be used for "protecting critical infrastructure and electoral mechanisms" for members of NATO, the European Union, and "countries that are participating in the enlargement process of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine." The money can also be used to . There is of nongovernmental & international organizations eligible to receive the money. The Secretary of State will work with the Ukrainian government to . This will "include strategies for market liberalization" including survey work need to "help attract qualified investment into exploration and development of areas with untapped resources in Ukraine." The plan will also support the implementation of a new gas law "including pricing, tariff structure, and legal regulatory implementation." and "privatization of government owned energy companies." from the 2014 Ukraine aid law and . The money will be available until . to include anyone who provides North Korea with any weapons or war service, aviation fuel, or insurance or registration for aircraft or vessels. Also expands sanctions to include anyone who gets minerals, including gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, copper, silver, nickel, zinc, or rare earth minerals from North Korea. to include anyone who purchases above-the-U.N.-limited amounts of coal, iron, textiles, money, metals, gems, oil, gas, food, or fishing rights from North Korea. Also , conducts transactions for the North Korean transportation, mining, energy, or banking industries, or participates in online commerce, including online gambling, provided by the government of North Korea. North Korean ships from entering US waters. Additional Reading Article: , Reuters, August 15, 2017. Article: by Erik Wemple, The Washington Post, August 15, 2017. Article: by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, August 13, 2017. Article: by Patrick Lawrence, The Nation, August 9, 2017. Article: by Joshua Berlinger, CNN, August 7, 2017. Article: by Rick Gladstone, The New York Times, August 1, 2017. Article: by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Article: by David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Ben Hubbard, The New York Times, July 19, 2017. Article: by Peter Baker, The New York Times, July 17, 2017. Article: by Joseph Tanfani, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2017. Article: by Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle and Ryan Grim, The Intercept, June 5, 2017. Article: by Bruce Riedel, Brookings, June 5, 2017. Article: by Gardiner Harris and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, May 17, 2017. Report: , National Intelligence Council, January 6, 2017. Article: by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 29, 2016. Article: by Ana Radelat, The CT Mirror, March 13, 2015. Article: by Zachary Davies Boren, Business Insider, April 16, 2014. Article: by Natalia Zinets and Elizabeth Piper, Reuters, March 27, 2014. Article: by Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Victoria Butenko, CNN, March 25, 2014. Article: , Ukrainian News Agency, March 24, 2014. Article: by Adrian Croft, Reuters, March 21, 2014. Article: by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, The Guardian, March 17, 2014. Article: , The Economist, February 27, 2014. Article: , BBC News, February 22, 2014. Article: by Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, February 22, 2014. Transcript: , BBC, February 7, 2014. Article: by Vladimir Isachenkov and Maria Danilova, USA Today, December 17, 2013. Article: , Reuters, December 15, 2013. Article: , Fox News, December 15, 2013. Article: by Richard Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk, Reuters, November 21, 2013. Article: by Ian Traynor and Oksana Grytsenko, The Guardian, November 21, 2013. Article: by Pavel Polityuk and Richard Balmforth, Reuters, November 5, 2013. Article: by Luke Baker and Justyna Pawlak, Reuters, October 31, 2013. Press Release: , International Monetary Fund, October 31, 2013. Article: by Shaun Walker, The Guardian, September 22, 2013. Article: by John Hudson, ForeignPolicy.com, July 14, 2013. Article: , Reuters, May 4, 2011. References GovTrack: GovTrack: GovTrack: IMF Report: CSPAN Video: , July 18, 2017. CSPAN Video: , December 18, 2013. CSPAN: CSPAN: Executive Orders : Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, December 28, 2016 : Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, April 1, 2015 : Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region in Ukraine, December 19, 2014 : Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 20, 2014 : Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 16, 2014 : Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 6, 2014 Visual References Sound Clip Sources House Debate: , July 25, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 1500 Rep. Pete Sessions (TX): The bill that was passed by the Senate risked giving Russian energy firms a competitive advantage across the globe by inadvertently denying American companies access to neutral third-party energy markets where there would simply be a small or diminished Russian presence. The bill before us today prevents Russia from being able to weaponize these sanctions against U.S. energy firms. And I want to thank Chairman Royce for his hard work on this issue. I also want to ensure that we have an understanding of the definition of the word controlling in Section 223(d) of H.R. 3364. For purposes of clarification and legislative intent, the term controlling means the power to direct, determine, or resolve fundamental, operational, and financial decisions of an oil project through the ownership of a majority of the voting interests of the oil project. 1515 Rep. Tim Ryan (OH): What’s happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not so dependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’ve also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Senate Session: , July 27, 2017. Transcript Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY): Mr. President, and last year we know the United States was victim of an attack by a foreign power on the very foundation of this dear democracy: the right of the people to a free and fair election. The consensus view of 17 agencies is that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016 election. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cyber Security, July 25, 2017. Witnesses Bruce Klingner: Senior Research Fellow of the Heritage Foundation Leon Sigal: Director of Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council (SSRSC) Susan Thornton: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Screenshot: No other Senators in the room Timestamps & Transcripts 3:48 Sen. Cory Gardner (CO): Last Congress, I lead the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. This legislation was the first stand-alone legislation in Congress regarding North Korea to impose mandatory sanctions on the regime’s proliferation activities, human-rights violations, and malicious cyber behavior. According to recent analysis from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, North Korea’s sanctions have more than doubled since that legislation came into effect on February 18, 2016. Prior to that date, North Korea ranked 8th behind Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Even with the 130% sanctions increase after the legislation passed this Congress, North Korea is today still only the 5th most sanctioned country by the United States. 21:22 Sen. Cory Gardner: Could you talk a little bit about the timing of the travel ban? Susan Thornton: Yeah. So, we believe that within the coming week we will publish a notice in the Federal Register, outlining the period of consultation and what we’re proposing, which is a general travel restriction, that will be in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period. And the proposal is to, I think as you know, make U.S. passports not valid for travel into North Korea unless you get—an application is made for a one-time trip, and you get a license or sort of a permission to make that trip. And so that’ll be in the Federal Register for 30 days. Gardner: Is that trip allowable under a humanitarian exemption? Is that the purpose of that allow— Thornton: Right, right. For the subsequent appl— you’d have to make an in-person application for a trip to— Gardner: And are we encouraging other nations to do the same, and have others made the same decision? Thornton: We have encouraged other people to make decisions about restricting travel and other—because tourism is obviously also a resource for the regime that we would like to see diminished. I don’t think so far there are other people that have pursued this but this will be sort of the initial one, and we will keep talking to others about that. 1:12:32 Leon Sigal: A policy of maximum pressure and engagement can only succeed if nuclear diplomacy is soon resumed and the North’s security concerns are addressed. We must not lose sight of the fact that it’s North Korea that we need to persuade, not China, and that means taking account of North Korea’s strategy. During the Cold War, Kim Il Sung played China off against the Soviet Union to maintain his freedom of maneuver. In 1988, anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union, he reached out to improve relations with the United States, South Korea, and Japan in order to avoid overdependence on China. That has been the Kims’ objective ever since. From Pyongyang’s vantage point, that aim was the basis of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the September 2005 six-party joint statement. For Washington, obviously, suspension of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs was the point of those agreements, which succeeded for a time in shuttering the North’s production of fissile material and stopping the test launches of medium- and longer-range missiles. Both agreements collapsed, however, when Washington did little to implement its commitment to improve relations, and, of course, Pyongyang reneged on denuclearization. That past is prologue. Now there are indications that a suspension of North Korean missile and nuclear testing and fissile material production may again prove negotiable. In return for a suspension of its production of plutonium and enriched uranium, the Trading with the Enemy Act sanctions imposed before the nuclear issue arose could be relaxed for yet a third time, and energy assistance unilaterally halted by South Korea in 2008 could be resumed. An agreement will require addressing Pyongyang’s security needs, including adjusting our joint exercises with South Korea, for instance by suspending flights of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers into Korean airspace. Those flights were only resumed, I want to remind you, to reassure our allies in the aftermath of the North’s nuclear tests. If those tests are suspended, B-52 flights can be, too, without any sacrifice of deterrence. North Korea’s well aware of the reach of U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs, which, by the way, were recently test launched to remind them. The U.S. can also continue to bolster, rotate, and exercise forces in the region so conventional deterrence will remain robust. The chances of persuading North Korea to go beyond another temporary suspension to dismantle its nuclear missile programs, however, are slim without firm commitments from Washington and Seoul to move toward political and economic normalization; engage in a peace process to end the Korean War; and negotiate security arrangements, among them a nuclear-weapons-free zone that would provide a multilateral legal framework for denuclearization. In that context, President Trump’s willingness to hold out the prospect of a summit with Kim Jong-un would also be a significant inducement. 1:23:06 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): We “convinced” Qaddafi to give up his nuclear-weapon program, we “convinced” Saddam Hussein to give up his nuclear-weapon program, and then subsequently we participated in a process that led to their deaths. Emergency Meeting: , August 5, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 3:47 Nikki Haley (US Ambassador): This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime. The price the North Korean leadership will pay for its continued nuclear and missile development will be the loss of 1/3 of its exports and hard currency. This is the most stringent set of sanctions on any country in a generation. 6:30 Matthew John Rycroft (British Ambassador to the U.N.): Make no mistake: as North Korea’s missile capabilities advance, so too does their contempt and disregard for this security council. We must meet this belligerence with clear, unequivocal condemnation and with clear, unequivocal consequences. Today, Mr. President, we have banned North Korean exports of coal, iron ore, lead, and seafood. These are the lifeline exports that sustain Kim Jong-un’s deadly aspirations. In simple terms, should the North Korean regime continue its reckless pursuit of an illegal missile program and a deadly nuclear program, they will have vastly less [unclear]. We’ve also capped the number of foreign workers from North Korea. Every year, DPRK sends thousands of ordinary workers overseas. They often endure poor conditions and long hours, and their toil serves to provide critical foreign currency for North Korean government coffers. This is undoubtedly a form of modern slavery, and today we have taken the first step to ending it. The world will now monitor and curtail work authorizations for these desperate ex-patriots. 28:11 Vasily Nebenzya (Russian Ambassador): We share the feeling of neighboring states in the region. The ballistic missiles, which were launched without warning from North Korea, pose a major risk to marine and air transit in the region as well as to the lives of ordinary civilians. We call upon the North Korean government to end the banned programs and to return to the NPT, nonproliferation regime, and the IAEA oversights as well as to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. All must understand that progress towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be difficult so long as the DPRK perceives a direct threat to its own security, for that is how the North Koreans view the military buildup in the region, which takes on the forms of frequent, wide-ranging exercises in maneuvers of the U.S. and allies as they deploy strategic bombers, naval forces, and aircraft carriers to the region. Another destabilizing factor in the region is the scaling up in North Korea of the THAAD, the U.S. antimissile defense elements. We repeatedly noted not only this constitutes an irritant, but this also undermines the overall military balance in the region and calls into question the security of neighboring states. We would like to hope that the U.S. secretary of state’s assurances were sincere, that the U.S. is not seeking to dismantle the existing DPRK situation or to forcibly unite the peninsula or militarily intervene in the country. However, we are concerned that our proposed, our paragraph in the draft resolution was not supported. The possible military misadventures by any side are liable to cause a disaster for regional and global stability. Discussion: , December 19, 2013. Witness Frederick Kempe: President & CEO of the Atlantic Council Transcripts Frederick Kempe: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday said he had agreed to loan Ukraine $15 billion and cut the price of critical natural gas supplies. Ukraine’s Prime Minister Azarov called the deal historic. In Brussels a draft EU document, reported this morning by the Wall Street Journal, indicated Ukraine could have gained even more from the West, though with different conditions and perhaps not as plainly put. Had it signed the EU pact, it might have had $26 billion of loans and grants from the EU over the next seven years, and if it had also agreed to the IMF package. While the Ukraine pivots economically eastward, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians continue to pivot westward, standing together in protest for their continued desire to be part of a Europe, whole and free. And it’s in that context that we welcome back a great friend of the Atlantic Council, Senator John McCain, who visited these protestors over the weekend with Senator Chris Murphy, and continues to play a consistent and leading and principled role in supporting democratic change both in Eastern Europe and around the world and thinking through what role the United States should be playing in these challenging times. Sen. John McCain (AZ): If Ukraine’s political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend. From holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government, with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health and sustainable development. Sen. John McCain (AZ): And eventually, a Ukrainian president, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choices facing the country, which is this: while there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be born by one person alone in Ukraine, nor should it be. It must be shared, both the risks and the rewards, by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF, and the United States. YouTube: , February 7, 2017. to see the full transcript Transcripts Victoria Nuland: What do you think? Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now, so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you’ll want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario, and I’m very glad he said what he said in response. Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: Can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy, Robert Serry. Did I write you that this morning? Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. Nuland: Okay. He’s not gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of out reach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. Briefing: , February 6, 2014 Witness Jen Psaki: State Department Spokesperson Timestamps & Transcripts 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? 7:40 Female Reporter: This was two top U.S. officials that are on the ground, discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the U.N. to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the U.S. trying to make suggestions; this is the U.S. midwifing the process Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 15, 2014. Witnesses Zbigniew Brzezinski Carter’s National Security Advisor 77-81 Center for Strategic & International Studies, counselor & Trustee Thomas Melia: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights & Labor at the Department of State Victoria Nuland: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Timestamps & Transcripts 32:27 Thomas Melia: Our approach to Ukraine complements that of our EU partners and what they sought in their association agreement, a Ukraine that is more responsive to its citizens, that offers its people opportunities that a growing free-market economy would provide based on the rule of law. 34:19 Victoria Nuland: The point that we have made repeatedly to Russia, and that I certainly made on my trip to Russia between two trips to Ukraine in December, was that a Ukraine that is economically stable and prosperous should be no threat to Russia, that this is not a zero-sum game that we are playing here, and that, in fact, the same benefits that the EU was offering to Ukraine—benefits of association and economic integration—are also available to a Russia that wants to take the same market opening and democratic reform steps that Ukraine has already taken, 18 pieces of legislation having already been completed. 58:43 Senator John McCain (AZ): This is a country that wants to be European. They don’t want to be Russian. That’s what this is all about. 59:52 Senator John McCain (AZ): I’m somewhat taken aback by your, “well, it’s sort of up to the Ukrainian people.” We ought to be assisting morally the Ukrainian people for seeking what we want everybody on this earth to have, and so it’s not just up to the Ukrainian people. They cry out for our assistance. Panel: , Aspen Ideas Festival, June 26, 2017. Witnesses Ory Rinat: White House Interim Chief Digital Officer Farhad Majoo: New York Times Correspondent Transcripts Ory Rinat: What drives social engagement? What drives Internet engagement? It’s shares. And that’s not a social-media thing; that’s back to forwarding chain emails. It’s when people share, that’s the source of engagement. And what drives people to share? It’s anger. It’s sadness. It’s inspiration. It’s really rare; it happens, but it’s rare that somebody says, wow, I just read an objective, fascinating piece that represents both sides; let me share it on Facebook. That’s not what people share. And so what happens is we’ve incentivized, as a society, sensationalism in journalism. I was giving an example earlier: during the transition, there was an article in a publication that should not be named that said something along the lines of, Trump transition website lifts passages from nonprofit group. Okay. Doesn’t sound that great. Couple of paragraphs in, they mention that the website actually sourced and cited the nonprofit. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote the CO of the nonprofit saying it was okay. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote a lawyer saying even if it wasn’t okay, even if they didn’t have permission, and even if they didn’t cite it, it was probably still legal. But that headline was so sensationalized, and people want to click on something that makes them angry, and so everybody just needs to take a breath, and it’s not the Internet’s fault. Farhad Manjoo: Well, it’s the Internet ad model’s fault, right? It’s the fact that those sites—Facebook, every news site you can think of—is getting paid based on clicks. So is sort of the fundamental fix here some other business model for online news and everything else? Ory Rinat: Sure, I just can’t think of one. Farhad Manjoo: Right. Panel: , The Aspen Institute, August 4, 2017. Witnesses Nick Burns: Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Bush) Condoleezza Rice: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Tom Donilon: Former National Security Advisor (Obama) Stephen Hadley: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Susan Rice: National Security Advisor Timestamps & Transcripts 9:00 Condoleezza Rice: The liberal order was born, it was an idea, designed after World War II, when people looked out at the world that they had inherited after World War I and said, let’s not do that again. And it had two important elements, and it had one important fact. One element was they really believed that the international economy did not have to be a zero-sum game. It could be competitive, but it could be a growing economy and a positive-sum game, so my gains were not your losses, and that’s why they wanted to have free trade, and they wanted to have a comparative advantage among countries. And as you said, they set up institutions to do it, an International Monetary Fund and exchange rates, a World Bank eventually starting as a European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which would rebuild economies and actually would become a source of capital for countries coming out of colonialism. And in some ways the most remarkable one, the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was not a set of trade agreements but rules of the road to level the playing field so that the international economy could grow. So it was by its very nature supposed to get us away from conflict in the international system. They hated the fact that there’d been beggar-thy-neighbor trading policies and competition over resources. It was violent. So they weren’t going to do that again. Then, the important fact: they were going to try to create the democratic peace where they could, so they rebuilt Germany as a democracy, Japan as a democracy, and it was all going to be protected by American military power. And so that was the liberal order. 12:00 Condoleezza Rice: It is being challenged by Russia because Russia unfortunately doesn’t really have a foot in the economic side and, therefore, uses its military power for its respect. But it’s also being challenged by the four horsemen of the Apocalypse—populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism—and they tend to run together. And so one of the questions that we ought to be asking is not just the challenge to the liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or from big powers like Russia and China but how do we deal with the fact that it does seem that there are those who believe that they were left behind by the global order, and they’re fighting back. They found people who will give them an answer as to why they didn’t succeed. Populists always have an answer: it’s the other—the Chinese; the illegal immigrants; if you’re from the Left, the big banks. And, oh, by the way, the other this time around is not just taking your jobs; the other is dangerous—so refugees and immigrants—and so I think the challenge is this time not just one that we foreign-policy people can understand but one that has to go internally to these societies and see what’s happening. That’s why I’m glad for the Aspen Strategy Group, that we are having this wonderful session that _____(01:30) will help to lead, because this is a really big challenge from the inside and from the out. And, yes, I’m worried that the liberal order might not survive it. 31:00 Condoleezza Rice: Leading differently obviously means finding a role for others—that’s very important—but it also means—and I know we can’t retire from this role, but there is a weariness among the American people, and we can’t ignore it. We can’t as foreign-policy people simply say, look, we’ve had to get back there and lead. We have to say, we’re going to lead because it’s in our interests, it’s with our values, and our allies have to appreciate it, right? And they have to be a part of it. That’s my point. I think we really haven’t gotten from the allies. What we get mostly from the allies is criticism for not leading, because the only thing the world hates more than unilateral American leadership is no American leadership, but we do need our allies to step up, and some of them have. On Minsk, for instance, the Germans stepped up to try and settle the Ukrainian circumstances. But let’s not underestimate outside of foreign-policy leads, the degree to which the American people are asking questions about how much more we can do. Unknown Speaker: Well, this is a good transition point to Russia. Let me just frame it this way: since Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, 20 of the 28 allies have raised their defense spending, and they feel the threat. And I would even say right now, Merkel is leading NATO, not so much the United States; she’s leading NATO on this. So, Condi, you studied the Russians and the Soviets your life; we’ve got a dilemma here. Putin attacked our election and tried to discredit our democracy. We know he did that. Putin annexed Crimea. He still has troops in the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine, dividing that country. He has been a malevolent force in Syria. So, what’s the strategy for President Trump here? How does he respond to this? And we saw this extraordinary situation where the president was essentially repudiated by the Republicans in Congress on this big vote in the Senate and House to sanction Russia. If you were to give advice to him, what would it be? Not to put you on the spot too much. Rice: Well, thanks. Well, the first advice I would give is, be sure you know who Vladimir Putin is, right? And Vladimir Putin is someone who likes to humiliate, someone who likes to dominate, and someone who essentially understands power. And so don’t go into a room with Vladimir Putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position, and that means when you go to talk to Vladimir Putin, first let’s continue the policy that the Obama administration began, maybe even accelerate the policy of putting forces, at least on a rotating basis but possibly on a permanent basis, in places like Poland and the Baltic states so that you say to him, this far and no further. Secondly, I like raising the defense budget as a signal to the Russians. Third, I think you have to say to the Russians, we know you did it on the electoral process; we will, at a time of our choosing, by means of our choosing, we will deal with it, but we have confidence in our electoral system, so don’t think that you’re undermining American confidence by what you’re doing, because he feeds on the sense that he’s succeeding in undermining our confidence. And the final thing I’d say to him is, stop flying your planes so close to our ships and aircraft; somebody’s going to get shot down, because once you’ve established the kind of ground rules with Vladimir Putin, now you can talk about possible areas of cooperation. By the way, there’s one other thing I’d do: I’d arm the Ukrainians. I think that you have got to raise the cost to the Russians of what they’re doing in Ukraine, and it’s not on the front pages anymore, but in Eastern Ukraine, people are dying every day because of those little Russian green men, the Russian separatists, who, with Russian military training and Russian military intelligence and Russian military capability, are making a mess of Eastern Ukraine and making it impossible for Kiev to govern the country. And so I think it’s time to arm them. 33:30 Nick Burns: I think President Obama actually put in place a lot of what Condi’s saying. Is there bipartisan agreement on this tough policy? Susan Rice: I think there’s certainly bipartisan agreement on the steps that Condi described that we characterized as the European Response Initiative, where we got NATO with our leadership to put in those four countries, the three Baltics, plus Poland, a continuous, rotating, augmented presence and _____(00:26) deployed not only personnel but equipment, and we have reversed the trend of the downsizing of our presence in Europe, and that’s vitally important. 36:00 Tom Donilon: It’s important to recognize some of the fundamentals here, right, which is that we are in an actively hostile posture with the Russians right now. And it’s not just in Europe; it’s in Syria, it’s in Afghanistan, it’s in Syria, and it was in our own elections, and it’ll be in the European elections going through the next year as well, and it’ll probably be in our elections 2018 and 2020 unless we act to prevent it. So, we’re in, I think, in an actively hostile posture with the Russians, coming from their side. 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We’re putting battalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic states and in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus that newspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000 tanks—I think I’ve got that number right— Unknown Speaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanks than Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to be careful that we don’t get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with Russia and not have the resources to back it up. 58:00 Condoleezza Rice: Democracy promotion—democracy support, I like to call it—is not just the morally right thing to do, but, actually, democracies don’t fight each other. They don’t send their 10-year-olds as child soldiers. They don’t traffic their women into the sex trade. They don’t attack their neighbors. They don’t harbor terrorists. And so democracies are kind of good for the world, and so when you talk about American interests and you say you’re not sure that we ought to promote democracy, I’m not sure you’ve got a clear concept, or a clear grasp, on what constitutes American interests. Speech: , Council of Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015. Transcript Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015. Witnesses Anne W. Patterson: Assistant Secretary Department of State, Near Eastern Affairs Transcript Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Who are we talking about when we’re speaking about moderate opposition, and do they, in fact, include elements of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and other more extremist groups? Anne Patterson: Well, let me take the civilian moderate opposition, too, and that’s the assistance figure that you’re referring to, and that is groups within Syria and groups that live in Turkey and Lebanon and other places; and what that project is designed to do is to keep these people, not only alive physically, but also keep them viable for a future Syria, because we have managed to, even areas under control of ISIL—I won’t mention them—but we have managed to provide money to city councils, to health clinics, to teachers and policemen so these people can still provide public services and form the basis for a new Syria. So that’s—a good portion of that money goes into efforts like that. There’s also the opposition on the ground, and I think they’ve sort of gotten a bum rap in this hearing because I think they are more extensive than it’s generally recognized, particularly in the south, and they, yes, of course, in the north, some of these individuals have affiliated with Nusra because there was nowhere else to go. Anne Patterson: Moscow has cynically tried to claim that its strikes are focused on terrorists, but so far eighty-five to ninety percent of Syrian strikes have hit the moderate Syrian opposition, and they have killed civilians in the process. Despite our urging, Moscow has yet to stop the Assad regime’s horrific practice of barrel bombing the Syrian people, so we know that Russia’s primary intent is to preserve the regime. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD155: FirstNet Empowers AT&T

7 augusti 2017 | 110 min

In 2012, Congress created a new government agency called FirstNet and tasked it with building a high-speed wireless network that would allow all first responders in the United States to communicate with each other daily and in times of emergencies. In July, FirstNet awarded AT&T with a 25 year contract to do the actual work. In this episode, hear highlights from a recent hearing about this new network as we examine the wisdom of contracting such an important part of our public safety infrastructure to the private sector. Please visit to nominate your favorite Congressional Dish episode. Password: Patreon Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Article: by Blake Montgomery, Buzzfeed News, August 2, 2017. Article: by Donny Jackson, Urgent Communications, August 1, 2017. Article: by Donny Jackson, Urgent Communications, August 1, 2017. Article: by Adam Stone, GovTech, July 27, 2017. Interview: by Andy Reed, Executive Biz, July 27, 2017. Article: by David McLaughlin, Gerry Smith and Scott Moritz, Bloomberg, July 24, 2017. Article: by Daniel Vitulich, Wireless Week, July 21, 2017. Article: by Amy Kolb Noyes, VPR, July 14, 2017. Article: by Dave Gram, VTDigger, July 9, 2017. Article: by Al Catalano, Keller and Heckman LLP, Lexology, June 29, 2017. Article: by Leidos, PR Newswire, June 26, 2017. Article: by Theo Douglas, GovTech, June 19, 2017. Report: , U.S. Government Accountability Office, June 2017. Article: , AT&T Newsroom, April 4, 2017. Article: by News Staff, GovTech, March 30, 2017. Article: by Lesia Dickson, GovTech, January 26, 2017. Article: , AT&T Newsroom, December 14, 2016. Article: by Paul Davidson, USA Today, November 30, 2016. Article: , AT&T Newsroom, November 10, 2016. Article: by Michael J. de la Merced, The New York Times, October 22, 2016. Article: by Colin Wood, GovTech, May 18, 2016. Website: , The New York Times, February 13, 2016. Article: , AT&T Newsroom, July 24, 2015. Article: by Adam Stone, GovTech, November 17, 2014. Article: by Greg Gordon, McClatchy News Service, GovTech, September 26, 2014. Article: by Greg Gordon, McClatchy DC Bureau, July 14, 2014. Article: by Jose Pagliery, CNN, May 20, 2014. Article: by Tod Newcombie, GovTech, April 17, 2014. Article: by David Raths, GovTech, October 10, 2012. Article: by Sarah Rich, GovTech, August 20, 2012. Article: by Seth Schiesel, The New York Times, June 25, 1998. Article: by Edmund Andrews, The New York Times, February 9, 1996. Article: by Edmund Andrews, The New York Times, September 20, 1994. Article: by Eben Shapiro, The New York Times, May 7, 1991. Article: by Ernest Holsendolph, The New York Times, January 9, 1982. Article: by Gene Smith, The New York Times, November 21, 1974. References Website: Website: GovTrack: Document: Infoplease: YouTube: YouTube: Visual References Sound Clip Sources Hearing: ; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications; July 20, 2017. Witnesses: Curtis Brown: Virginia Deputy Secretary of Public Safety & Homeland Security Dr. Damon Darsey: University of Mississippi Medical Center Professor Mark Goldstein: GAO Physical Infrastructure Issues Director Chris Sambar: AT&T FirstNet, Senior Vice President Michael Poth: FirstNet CEO Timestamps & Transcripts 1:10 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): In 2012 Congress created the First Responder Network Authority to lead the development of a nationwide interoperable public-safety broadband network in the United States. Following the communication’s failures that plagued recovery efforts during 9/11 and other national emergencies, including Hurricane Katrina, there was and still is a clear need for a reliable communications network to support the essential work of our public-safety officials. Such a network would improve coordination among first responders across multiple jurisdictions and enhance the ability of first responders to provide lifesaving emergency services quickly. 6:37 Sen. Brian Schatz (HI): With FirstNet, firefighters will be able to download the blueprint of a burning building before they enter; a police officer arriving at a scene can run a background check or get pictures of a suspect by accessing a federal law enforcement database; most importantly, emergency personnel will not be competing with commercial users for bandwidth. They will have priority on this network, which will be built and hardened to public-safety specifications. It will have rugged eyes and competitive devices and specify public-safety applications. 9:40 Curtis Brown: Last week the governor was proud to announce that Virginia was the first state in the nation to opt in to FirstNet. Virginia opted in to provide current AT&T public-safety subscribers with the benefit of priority services now at no cost to the Commonwealth, as well as the green light to build out of Virginia’s portion of the national public-safety broadband network. We believe that decision to opt in will promote competition within the public-safety communications marketplace, that will reduce costs and drive innovation across all carriers. Opting out was _____(00:31-verily) considered, but the unknown cost and risk associated with deploying and operating a network was not feasible. 19:45 Mark Goldstein: In March 2017 FirstNet awarded a 25-year contract to AT&T to build, operate, and maintain the network. FirstNet’s oversight of AT&T’s performance is very important, given the scope of the network and the duration of the contract. Among GAO’s findings in the report are the following: first, FirstNet has conducted key efforts to establish the network, namely releasing the requests for proposal for the network and awarding the network contract to AT&T. As the contractor, AT&T will be responsible for the overall design, development, production, operation, and evolution of the network. 24:35 Chris Sambar: The AT&T team that I lead is dedicated exclusively to FirstNet. I expect this group to grow to several-hundred employees by this year’s end as we hire people across the country with a broad range of skill sets to help us ramp up our network build out. Overall, AT&T expects to spend $40 billion over the lifetime of this contract and to build an operating unique, nationwide, interoperable, IP-based, high-speed mobile network, encrypted at its core, that will provide first responders priority, primary users with preemption and all other users during times of emergency and network congestion. The First Responder Network will be connected to and leverage off AT&T’s world-class telecommunications platform, valued at nearly $180 billion, including a wireless network that reaches 99.6% of the U.S. population. In addition, AT&T will support first responders 24 by 7 by 365 with a dedicated security-operation center and help desk. We will provide first responders with a highly secure application ecosystem as well as a highly competitive flexible pricing on equipment and services that they select for their unique needs. One of the most important resources that AT&T brings to bear on the new First Responder Network is our best-in-class national disaster-recovery team. We have spent more than a 130,000 working hours on field exercises and disaster-recovery deployments over the last two decades. This team combines network infrastructure, support trailers, recovery engineering-software applications, and boots on the ground filled by full-time and volunteer AT&T disaster-response team members. In order to support the First Responder Network, AT&T will increase its disaster-recovery fleet by adding 72 new custom-designed vehicles, just for the FirstNet mission. 26:55 Chris Sambar: Possibilities include near real-time information on traffic conditions, which can help determine the best route to an emergency for a first responder; wearable sensors and cameras for police and firefighters to help give them better situational awareness and camera-equipped drones and robots that will be able to deliver real-time imagery. Our FirstNet efforts are expected to create 10,000 U.S. jobs over the next two years as well as significant public-private infrastructure investment. 30:25 Michael Poth: We’ve created and delivered state plans on June 19 to 50 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia three months ahead of schedule, and as mentioned, the five governors from five great states have already opted in. None of this could be possible, though, without the public-private framework that Congress established for the FirstNet network, by leveraging private-sector resources, infrastructure, cost savings, public-private partner synergies to deploy, operate, and maintain the system. FirstNet can be now deployed quickly, efficiently, and cost effectively. 36:10 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): Dr. Darsey mentioned that the Mississsippi wireless communications commission has expressed concerns about FirstNet’s commitment to hardening the network. You mentioned this in your testimony, the need for FirstNet infrastructure to be hardened. Can you discuss why that’s important, and is it more important in the rural areas, and also, in your experience, how do broadband needs differ between urban and rural communities with respect to providing emergency medical services? Dr. Damon Darsey: Sure. Thanks for the question. I’ll give you an example. Couple years ago we had a tornado, as you well remember, that took out a hospital in the northeast part of our state. And the medical center has got a pretty robust program to respond to that, and we did. The challenge in that was it took out a couple of commercial towers, but it did not, after a fairly close hit, take out one of our hardened public-safety communication towers. What that did for us is we lost all ability to communicate data out of that area, which was vital in moving and evacuating the hospital, nursing home, and recovering the people that were there. That’s the piece that is the concern that I think we share, all of us here, of how do we make that as hardened as possible. In terms of rural and urban, from a medical perspective we can do a lot more, as our team is showing in Mississippi and other states, if we know about the patient well before they get close to a hospital. If we can reach out and touch the stroke patient in the middle of the Mississippi Delta, we can dramatically increase their chances of survival and meaningful use after arrival to the hospital. Currently, we’re doing that over radio, and it’s working really well, but now imagine that in the rural areas. In urban areas, it’s vital in the medical world, but here we’re five minutes from multiple hospitals. Now take that as a 45 or 50 minutes away, and what we can do with broadband data in that time is truly life saving and saving of healthcare dollars. There’s a nexus here that FirstNet can combine both of those. 41:00 Michael Poth: Numerous bids were in, and they were analyzed with a great level of detail, and through that process that the Department of Interior assisted us with as the acquisition experts, AT&T came out as the prevailing solution and prevailing company provider. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL): The question is why. Poth: Well, the value that they’re bringing with their existing infrastructure, their ability and size, their financial sustainability to be able to take on something of this nature, and their lowest-risk approach to implementing this in the shortest time was truly some of the value propositions that made them more competitive than some of the other bids that were analyzed. 42:13 Chris Sambar: The initial RFP that FirstNet released contemplated building out a public-safety broadband network using just band class 14, and we responded accordingly. But through discussions, we decided we would extend it beyond just the band class 14, which is the spectrum that was allocated for first responders in 2012. We said we would open up all of the spectrum bands within AT&T. So, essentially, what that means is the day that a state opts in, they have immediate access to AT&T’s entire network, all spectrum bands, and they will see the benefits of FirstNet on all spectrum bands, all wireless towers, from AT&T that are LTE enabled. So I think that’s a tremendous benefit that FirstNet was not expecting when they contemplated the original RFP. But when we brought that, I think they were very pleased with that, and that helped us. Sen. Bill Nelson (FL): So, you’re going to have a level playing field for all device manufacturers. Sambar: Absolutely, sir. 43:15 Sen. Bill Nelson (FL): There must have been some folks in Virginia that suggested that you opt out of the network and chart your own path. Tell me the benefits to Virginia’s first responders of the governor’s decision to opt in. Curtis Brown: Thank you, Senator. The decision to opt in was really based on looking at the benefits that comes with opt in, the immediate priority and preemption services that would come for those who are subscribers to the network. And a major thing, Senator, is to the fact that it comes at no cost to the Commonwealth. We have been disproportionately impacted by sequestration and other aspects—the governor had to close a 300-million-dollar budget deficit—and so looking at the cost it would take to build a network and sustain it, it just was not feasible. 47:45 Chris Sambar: We initially envisioned, when we launched the State Plan portal on June 19, that we would have roughly 50 user IDs and passwords per state. That would be 50 individuals who would access the portal. We immediately got feedback that states wanted more, and we are offering more. So, we have a state right now, as a matter of fact, 227 login and user IDs have been issued. So, it shouldn’t be an issue for a state if they have additional people. The only requirements we have, Senator, is that, as Mr. Poth said, that it’s an official email address, somebody in the state who works for the state— Unknown Senator: Right. Sambar: —or an authorized consultant. Either of those is fine. We just don’t want, like, a @gmail, @hotmail, someone that we don’t know who they are. Unknown Senator: Right, okay. 53:14 Michael Poth: How do the states hold us accountable? As FirstNet shifts gears from developing a proposal and making an award, for the next 25 years we are going to be in a position to work with the states, continuous and public safety in all of those states, to make sure that all of their expectations, both from the State Plans and in the future, are being met and translated. If appropriate, we back into contractual actionable items. Or if AT&T, for example, is not meeting the requirements or the expectations, FirstNet will, on behalf of public safety and those states, enforce the terms of the contract. 54:55 Michael Poth: Canada is using the same exact spectrum that we’ll be utilizing with AT&T, so there’s a lot of synergies. We’ve spent a great deal of time coordinating and comparing notes with Canada and the public-safety entities in that country as to what we’re doing so that there is the inoperability between the countries will also be realized. 1:08:50 Chris Sambar: So we have had a number of states as well as federal agencies we’ve been in communication with, and some of the states have been very direct that they’re interested us putting our LTE equipment on state-, city-, municipal-owned assets. That would give them the benefit of revenue from AT&T through a lease agreement. It would also give us a benefit of being able to build out the network faster. 1:24:20 Michael Poth: AT&T’s already been doing this, as mentioned, for years with their fleet of 700 deployables. Now with the 72 dedicated, which are much smaller units which is going to give us the ability to maybe get those into areas that are a little tougher to get to, we’re very excited about that. That is an absolute addition to the solution that we’re going to be able to bring to public safety quickly. 1:25:50 Chris Sambar: So, we will be building out band class 14 over the coming five years across a significant portion of our network. In the meantime, before band class 14 is built out, we will be using our commercial network. There are requirements in the contract with FirstNet over how quickly we need to build out band class 14, and we have to hit those milestones in order to receive the payments due to us from FirstNet. If we don’t hit those milestones, we don’t receive the payments, so we will be aggressively building out band class 14 for first responders. Again, in the meantime, they will have access to all of AT&T’s bands. So to say it simply, if you are a first responder, Senator, you will not know whether you’re on band class 14 or any other AT&T band, but you will have the exact same experience regardless of what band you are on on AT&T network. Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): Your position isn’t the service that’s provided, and the consumer and the public-safety user, to them it will be immaterial where it’s coming from. Sambar: The way I like to say— Exactly. The way I say it is this: public safety has been told for many years that the magic of FirstNet happens on band class 14, and we’ve changed that. That’s not correct anymore. The magic happens on the AT&T network period, and it doesn’t matter where you are, you’re going to have the exact same experience. So we’ve extended it far beyond the band class 14 to our entire network. Wicker: Will you build out the class 14 spectrum only where it is economically viable, or will you build it out where there is written requirement in the arrangement between you and FirstNet? Sambar: We are building band class 14 where we need the capacity in our network. So in order to provide priority and preemptive services to first responders and have enough capacity for everyone that’s on the network, including the first responders, there are places where we will need additional capacity; that’s where we’re building— Wicker: And you will determine that need. Sambar: AT&T, based on capacity triggers—obviously, we’ve been doing this for a long time—based on capacity triggers that we see in the network, we build out band class 14 as additional capacity on individual—and this is done on a tower-by-tower basis. 1:28:00 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): Are you able to say what approximate percentage of the lower 48 landmass will be covered by band class 14 build out? Chris Sambar: Unfortunately, I am not, Senator. That’s proprietary between FirstNet and AT&T. I would say, again, it’s a significant portion, though. Wicker: Can you be more specific than “significant”? Sambar: That would be proprietary, Senator. I apologize. Wicker: And what makes it proprietary? Sambar: The specific details of the contract between FirstNet and AT&T. There’s a number of specific details that are proprietary, Senator. Wicker: That is proprietary and not available to the public— Sambar: That’s correct, Senator. Wicker: —or to the Congress. Sambar: That’s correct, Senator. 1:29:35 Sen. Roger Wicker: Then in terms of this coverage, which you said really shouldn’t matter what band it’s coming over— Chris Sambar: Mm-hmm. Wicker: —are you able to say what percentage of the lower 48 landmass will be covered in one way or the other? Sambar: One way or the other? Wicker: Yes. Apart, of course, from the deployables. Sambar: So, 99.6% of the U.S. population will be covered by AT&T’s network. 1:39:05 Chris Sambar: The vast major—as we understand it, based on our research and FirstNet’s research—the vast majority of firefighters, for example, are not issued devices for their daily use at work, especially volunteer firefighters. Greater than 70% of police officers are in the same situation: they are not provided a device. They’re using their personal devices. We are going to make available the FirstNet network to all of those first responders, regardless of whether you’re a volunteer, whether your agency provides you a device, or whether you bring your own personal device. They will have access to the FirstNet network. Once we can verify their credentials and ensure that we have the right people on the network, they will have access to all of those features and benefits, and it will come at a significantly lower price than they’re paying today for their personal or commercial service. So it’s a tremendous benefit to all first responders. 1:39:55 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): On user fees, will they cost the same for all network users, or will they vary by regions, public-safety agencies, or states? Chris Sambar: It’s difficult to answer because there are different use cases, so it depends. If you’re a large department and you want unlimited data and you have a number of applications that you want preinstalled on the device and you have mobile-device management software, that would be one use case. There may be a rural department that wants to connect body cameras and dashboard video camera from a police department. It will depend on the use case. Wicker: So it’s use case and not regions and states. Sambar: That’s correct, sir. Wicker: That would be the variable. Sambar: That’s correct. Hearing: ; House Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, September 29, 2005. Witnesses: David Boyd: Homeland Security Dept SAFECOM Program Director Timothy Roemer: Member of the 9/11 Commission, Director of the Center for National Policy Art Botterell: Emergency Information Consultant Timestamps & Transcripts 30:44 David Boyd: Interoperability’s not a new issue. It was a problem in Washington, D.C. when the Air Florida flight crashed into the Potomac in 1982, in New York City when the Twin Towers were first attacked in 1993, in 1995 when the Murrah Building was destroyed in Oklahoma City, and in 1999 at Columbine. Too many public-safety personnel cannot communicate by radio, because their equipment is still incompatible, or the frequencies they are assigned to are different and they haven’t got bridging technologies available. They operate on 10 different frequency bands, and they run communication systems that are often proprietary and too often 30 or more years old. Over 90% of the nation’s public-safety wireless infrastructure is financed, owned, operated, and maintained by the more than 60,000 individual local jurisdictions—police, fire, and emergency services—that serve the public. 1:43:00 Timothy Roemer: Let me give you a couple examples of what the 9/11 Commission found as to some of these problems. We found all kinds of compelling instances of bravery and courage, people going into burning buildings and rescuing people. They might have rescued more. We might have saved more of the fire department chiefs, officers, police officers, emergency personnel, if they would have had public-radio spectrum to better communicate. At 9:59 in the morning on 9/11 four years ago, a general evacuation order was given to firefighters in the North Tower. The South Tower had collapsed. A place that held up to 25,000 people had been diminished to cement, steel, and ash. The people, then, in the North Tower, many of the chiefs in the lobby, didn’t even know that the other tower had collapsed, or else they might have been able to get more people out more quickly. We had comments from people saying such things as, we didn’t know it had collapsed. Somebody actually said, Mr. Chairman, that people watching TV had more information than we did in the lobby on 9/11 in the North Tower. People on TV in Florida or California knew more than our first responders on site in New York City. 1:45:10 Timothy Roemer: Mr. Chairman, then we had a disaster happen in the southern part of our country in New Orleans where we had other communication problems. In New Orleans, there’re three neighboring parishes were using different equipment on different frequencies. They couldn’t communicate. We had National Guard in Mississippi communicating by human courier, not by radio frequencies; and we had helicopters up in the air looking at our own citizens on the roofs of their homes in New Orleans, screaming and yelling for help, but they couldn’t talk in the helicopters with the boats in the water to try to find out who was rescued, who wasn’t, and who needed help. 1:55:45 Art Botterell: Third, we can no longer afford to rely on vendor-driven design of our emergency-communications infrastructure. Businesses are responsible for maximizing shareholder value, not for protecting the public welfare. We need independent sources of information and planning for our future emergency infrastructure lest we continue to get updated versions of the same old thing. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD154: The OTHER Health Care Bills

24 juli 2017 | 110 min

We've paid a lot of attention this year to the bill that would “Repeal and Replace” the Affordable Care Act but that is not the only bill related to health care that is moving through Congress. In this episode, learn about the other health care bills that have made it just as far as the Repeal and Replace bill, including one that is already law. Also in this episode, we laugh at the Senate for inventing holidays and doing so in the dumbest way possible. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bills Outline Laws : Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients. Overturns finalized by the Obama Administration that would have prevented States from cutting off Federal funds for "family-planning services". Bills In Progress an antitrust exemption that currently applies to health and dental insurance for life insurance, and property or casualty insurance the Executive Branch to use regulations to create a procedure for certifying Association Health Plans (AHPs), which are not regulated like the state small group health insurance markets. Association Health Plans and the insurance companies that provide coverage and their decisions are exempt from State laws. a fund that will pay insurers to continue coverage if the plans disappears. The fund by the Executive Branch to pay for other things "whenever the Secretary determines that the moneys of the fund are in excess of current needs." A would be created to write the regulations. The applications for plans will . If the association plan becomes insolvent, the and can try to fix the plan, cancel the plan entirely, and . Would become effective and enactment regulations would be created by the Secretary of Labor. Enacts a on filing health care lawsuits which would be one year after the injury is discovered but never more than three years after the malpractice occurred The states can make the , "regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury." Actual economic losses (such as medical expenses, past and future earnings losses, and loss of employment) in health care lawsuits will . Each guilty party in a health care lawsuit in direct proportion to that party's percentage of responsibility. Doctors who prescribe a medicine that has been approved by the FDA along with manufacturers, distributors, or sellers in product liability lawsuits Any statements or conduct expressing "fault" (along with apology, sympathy, etc.) made by a health care provider in regards to an unexpected medical outcome for any purpose as evidence of an admission of liability. The statute of limitations would be and the limits on damages will be for all lawsuits started after the law is signed. Additional Reading Document: , Congressional Budget Office, July 19, 2017. Article: by Andrew Beaujon, Washingtonian, June 27, 2017. Document: , Congressional Budget Office, June 26, 2017. Document: , Congressional Budget Office, May 24, 2017. Article: by Timothy Jost, Health Affairs Blog, April 14, 2017. Document: , Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, April 13, 2017. Article: by Timothy Jost, Health Affairs Blog, April 11, 2017. Document: by Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 243, December 19, 2016. Article: by Jon Greenberg, Politifact, November 15, 2013. References American Civil Liberties Union: GovTrack: Cornell Law School: Kevin McCarthy Majority Leader website: ConsumersUnion: OpenSecrets: American Medical Association: Google: US Senate Financial Disclosure: American Health Insurance Plans: Dept of Health and Human Services: Medicaid: Washington Post: Videos CSPAN: YouTube: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House of Representatives Committee on Rules, February 14, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 6:40 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): I’ll make the point I continue to make about the process. Both of these rules, or protections, went through a long process, and whether you agree with them or not, there was a process. Here we are; the committees with jurisdiction did no hearings on this, have basically—there’ll be no opportunity for review. We know what the outcome is going to be: two more closed rules. So it’s kind of this whole hearing is kind of pointless because, again, the process is going to be the most restrictive that it can be. 9:40 Rep. Tim Walberg (MI): As you know, Title X is the only domestic federal program that provides grants for family-planning services. Grants go directly to states and non-governmental organizations, which then distribute money among healthcare providers. Over half of the grantees are state and local governmental agencies, which serve as intermediaries to distribute funding to subgrantees. Prior to this rule, states were free to direct their Title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in abortion. When states had this freedom, they were able to choose to invest in women’s health care instead of abortion. The new rule blocks states from restricting grants to potential recipients for reasons other than the ability to provide Title X services. Under this rule, states are prevented from establishing criteria that would eliminate abortion providers from receiving Title X grant money. Hearing: , House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, February 16, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 10:15 Rep. John Conyers (MI): I am pleased that the subcommittee’s first hearing of this new Congress is on H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, which repeals the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the health insurance business. For many years I’ve advocated for such a repeal, so I’m heartened to see the bipartisan nature of the support for this position. 11:50 Rep. John Conyers (MI): Congress passed McCarran-Ferguson Act in response to a 1944 Supreme Court decision, finding that antitrust laws applied to the business of insurance, like everything else. Both insurance companies and the states expressed concern about that decision. Insurance companies worried that it would jeopardize certain collective practices like joint-rate setting and a pooling of historical data, and the states were concerned about losing their authority to regulate and tax the business of insurance. To address these concerns, McCarran-Ferguson provided the federal antitrust laws apply to the business of insurance only to the extent that it is not regulated by state law, which has resulted in a broad antitrust exemption. Industry and state revenue concerns, rather than the key goals of protecting competition and consumers, were the primary drivers of the Act. In passing McCarran-Ferguson, Congress, however, initially intended to provide only a temporary exemption and, unfortunately, gave little to consideration to ensuring competition. 26:15 Rep. Austin Scott (GA): Be definition, health care and health insurance are not the same thing. But when one insurance company controls such significant portions of the cash flow of all of the providers in a region, no provider can stay in business without a contract with that carrier. Therefore, the insurance company gets to determine who is and who is not able to provide health care: sign a contract with a competing carrier, and we’ll cancel your contract. Accept the lower reimbursement, or we’ll cancel your contract. It’s closer to extortion than negotiation. Hearing: , , March 1, 2017. Witnesses : American Benefits Council, which represents Fortune 500 companies : Associate Director of Affordability at Families USA, a consumer advocate org. : Executive VP of Toko Marine HCC-Stop Loss Group & Chairman of the Self-Insurance Institute of America : President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts Timestamps & Transcripts 25:50 Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): Ultimately, they are fighting to maintain government control—government control over the kind of health insurance you can buy, government control over the kind of health insurance employers can and cannot offer workers, government control over the doctors you can see and the doctors you can’t see, and government control over certain healthcare benefits that many individuals may not need. Yet despite the cost and pain inflicted on so many Americans by Obamacare, the answer for some is still more government control. 47:35 Lydia Mitts: The second bill I would like to speak to is the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This bill would exempt association health plans from adhering to critical state and federal requirements for small-group coverage. These requirements have benefited small employers and their workers alike. They include protections that prevent plans from charging small employers exorbitantly higher premiums because their employees have poor health, are older, or are disproportionately women. They also include requirements that plans cover comprehensive benefits that meet the needs of a diverse workforce. By allowing association health plans to ignore these key protections, this bill would increase premiums and threaten stable access to comprehensive coverage for many small employers and their workers. Employers with a young workforce that is in pristine health may be able to get lower premiums. However, the rest of small businesses would see coverage become less affordable, whether they sought it through an association or the existing small-group market. On top of this, employees move to association plans would be at risk of facing skimpier coverage that doesn’t cover the care they need. 1:41:20 Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (OR): Ms. Mitts, the ACA included, as we know, unprecedented new consumer protections for patients, such as eliminating annual and lifetime limits, preventing insurers from dropping people when they get sick, charging women higher premiums. What will happen to these protections in association health plans? Lydia Mitts: Under the bill put forth to you today, those association health plans would no longer have to comply with so many of those rating protections that have been a huge benefit to many small businesses that prior before the Affordable Care Act actually had a really hard time finding affordable coverage for their employees because they employed employees who actually had healthcare needs, who were maybe older, and the market didn’t work for them before. And so we would move back to a situation where we’d have a segmented market, and people who are healthy, in pristine health, could move into an association health plan. I think the thing that’s important to keep in mind is that that doesn’t mean that association health plan would always be there and work for that small employer. If their workforce got older, claims went up, they might find that that association health plan charges them more, and it’s not a viable option for them anymore. Bonamici: Can you address—I know there’ve been some solvency concerns about some of the association health plans. Can you address that concern as well? Mitts: Yeah, there’s historically been concerns about association health plans not having adequate solvency funds. They have leaner, less rigid requirements than typical health insurance coverage. Partially state oversight was added to that to help address some of these problems, bigger problems, where they were just under ERISA. And when an association plan goes insolvent, their employers and their workers are still left with all of those unpaid medical claims and then on the hook for them. And if the plans are not under state jurisdiction, they won’t be able to benefit from state guaranty funds that help pay those claims, so they’ll be left on the hook for them. Hearing: , House Committee on the Judiciary, February 28, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 44:20 Rep. Steve King (IA): One of the drivers of higher healthcare spending is defensive medicine. It’s a very real phenomenon confirmed by countless studies in which healthcare workers conduct many additional costly tests and procedures with no medical value that are charged to the federal taxpayers and to other consumers simply to avoid excessive litigation costs. 45:25 Rep. Steve King (IA): They include the following: a bedside sonogram with an “official sonogram” because it’s easier to defend yourself to a jury if you’ve ordered the second sonogram; a CT scan for every child who bumped his head, or her head, to rule out things that can be diagnosed just fine by observation; x-rays that do not guide treatment such as for a simple broken arm; or CT scans for suspected appendicitis that has been perfectly well diagnosed without it. In fact, I have an orthopedic surgeon who has said to me that when he has a knee injury, 97% of the tests that he orders are protection from malpractice. He knows what he’s going to operate on before he actually starts the surgery. 51:55 Steve Cohen: And if we want to make health care cheaper, which we should, and make it more affordable, we ought to have a single-payer system. That would make it more affordable. And if that’s the nexus that makes this law applicable for the federal government to usurp the states, and the Chairman said that the nexus was that it makes things cheaper and anything makes health care cheaper is so important that we need to take it away from the states, well, if you’re concerned about cost, you should be for a single-payer system, and that would make it cheaper and take profits away from insurance companies that right now are paying for ads to get people to buy drugs and making immense profits and having their executives draw salaries in the areas of 40 and 50 million dollars. This bill takes away from people who are hurt by medical malpractice in ways that are artificial and wrong, and we should not be on the side of those people who commit medical malpractice and cause injuries to others. With all of that said, I respectfully suggest that the agenda we’re following is not the agenda of the American people at the present time, and it’s the agenda of the American Medical Association, who’s here today, and this is the bill du jour. Hearing: , Senate Finance Committee, June 8, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 44:37 Sen. Tom Carper (DE): And I like those ideas. I studied a little bit of economics at Ohio State as navy ROTC midshipman. I like market forces. I like trying to harness market forces and make them work. You came up with a good idea in 1993, and I just wish to heck that you would work with us to try to make sure that those good ideas have a chance of working. And the reason why the marketplaces are failing in places, like you mentioned Ohio in your statement, Mr. Chairman, the reason why they’re not working, we’ve basically undermined the individual mandate so that people will know if they really have to get coverage. Young people aren’t. We’ve taken off the training wheels, so to stabilize the marketplaces and insurance companies. They lost their shirts in 2014 because of it. They lost less money in 2015. Got better. They raised their premiums, they raised their copays, they raised their deductibles, and they did better in it. And tells that rather than the marketplaces being a death spiral at the end of 2016, they’re actually recovering, until a new administration came in and said, well, we’re not sure if we’re going to enforce the individual mandate, and, by the way, we don’t know for sure whether they’re going to extend the cost-sharing arrangements. That provides unpredictable lack of certainty for the insurance companies. What do they do? They say, we’re going to raise our premiums more. What you’re destabilizing, the very idea that these guys came up with 24 years ago. Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT): Well, if I could just interrupt for a second. Those were ideas that were against—it was part of the anti-Hillary care bill, and it— Carper: They were good ideas. Tom Price: Well— Carper: And I commend you for them. If my life depended on telling what Hillary care did, I couldn’t tell you. But I know what your bill did, and, frankly, there were good ideas, and now we’re undermining undercutting them. Why? Dr. Price, why? Price: Senator, I appreciate the observation. I would add to that that there are significant challenges out there, and there were so before this administration started. In your state alone, premiums were up 108% before this administration started. In your state alone, there were fewer insurance companies offering coverage on the exchange before this administration started. So what we’re trying to do is to address especially that individual and small-group market that is seeing significant increases in premiums, increases in deduct— Carper: What are you doing? What are you doing to doing? How are you stabilizing the marketplaces? Price: Well, we— Carper: Just give us some ideas. The three Rs. What are you doing on those? Reinsurance, risk adjustment, risk corridors. What are you doing there? Price: We passed it—or we put in place a market-stabilization rule earlier this year that identified the special enrollment periods and the grace periods to make certain that they were more workable for both individuals and for insurance companies. We allowed the states greater flexibility in determining what a qualified health plan was, to try to provide greater stability for the market. We put out word to all governors across this nation on both 1115 and 1332 waivers and suggestions regarding what they can do to allow for greater market stabilization in their states, and we look forward to working with you and other senators to try to make certain that all those individuals, not just in the individual and small-group market but every single American has the opportunity to gain access to the kind of coverage that works for them and their families. Sen. Mazie Hirono designated February 3rd as "National Wear Red Day." This is what she wore. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD153: Save the Post Office!

25 juni 2017 | 107 min

The post office is in trouble. Faced with an enormous debt and a legal obligation to serve every single American, the United States Postal Service needs Congress to make some changes in order to prevent service cuts and financial ruin. In this episode we analyze the plan currently moving through Congress. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Outline : Postal Service Reform Act of 2017 Title I: Postal Service Benefits Reform Postal employees will be the requirements for the USPS to pre-fund employee retirement health benefits. Title II: Postal Service Operations Reform a Board of Governors, which will have power over the Postmaster General and determine the strategic direction and pricing of the post office products. starting the day the bill is enacted. Businesses will get with all of them converted by September 30, 2023. will be able to convert voluntarily starting on October 1, 2018 and will have shared delivery points for up to 50 units each. We will be informed in writing if our homes have been selected by the end of March 2019 and . will automatically be converted to the centralized delivery Gives the Postal Regulatory Committee the post office to provide State and local government services the post office to reinstate half of the rate surcharge that was in effect in April 2016. Title III: Postal Service Personnel a Chief Innovation Officer position Title IV: Postal Contracting Reform the post office to issue non-competitive contracts, with notification requirements if they are over $250,000 Additional Reading Article: by Joe Davidson, The Washington Post, February 7, 2017. Article: by Mary Lou Byrd, The Washington Times, June 11, 2013. Article: by Josh Sanbum, TIME, February 7, 2013. References Document: Twitter: USPS: USPS: National Association of Letter Carriers: GovTrack: GovTrack: GovTrack: CBO: GovTrack: CBO: White House: Video Clips YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, February 7, 2017. Watch on Witnesses Megan J Brennan: Postmaster General Robert Taub: Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission Lori Rectanus: Direction or Physical Infrastructure issues at the US Gov’t Accountability Office Arthur Sackler: Manager at the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service Fredric Rolando: President of the National Association of Letter Carriers 5:19 Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Last July I was proud to see our committee favorably report the bill by a voice vote. Unfortunately, it didn’t make it across the finish line before the end of the Congress, but we did make a lot of progress, particularly with getting the CBO—the Congressional Budget Office—to come in and score the bill. 6:10 Rep. Jason Chaffetz: In an era of partisan politics, this legislation represents a significant bipartisan compromise. The bill gives the Postal Service the freedom it needs to successfully meet the business realities the agency faces. To do this, the bill allows the Postal Service to fully integrate its healthcare plans with Medicare. With such integration, the Postal Service can virtually wipe out its 52-billion-dollar retiree healthcare unfunded liability. Further, the bill achieves real savings by moving to more-efficient mail delivery, saving the Postal Service more than $200 a year for each address that can be converted from the door-to-door delivery to centralized delivery. The bill also helps the agency more accurately evaluate its cost structure and reforms key governance matters. 8:10 Rep. Elijah Cummings: The other thing I thank you for, Mr. Chairman, is so often what happens is that when a lot of work has been done in one term, it’s just tossed away, and then you have to start all over again. But I thank you for picking up where we left off. 10:40 Rep. Elijah Cummings: The total volume of mail handled by the Postal Service has fallen by more than 25% since 2006, and continued declines are expected. The cost of the Postal Service’s operations have also risen, in part because the Postal Service is required to provide universal delivery service to every address in the United States. Every year, about 900,000 new addresses are created in this country; and a network of postal facilities, letter carriers, and workers must expand to deliver to every new address—900,000; that’s a lot. The Postal Service is burdened by a 2006 statutory requirement imposed by Congress to fully pre-fund its liabilities for retiree healthcare costs, a requirement that no other federal agency or private-sector company faces. These liabilities, combined with the Postal Service’s unfunded pension liabilities, currently total about $125 billion, which is almost double its annual revenues. Even as it fixed costs continued to grow, the exigent rate increase that had been approved to enable the Postal Service to recoup some of the losses incurred because of a 2008 recession’s permanent impact on mail volume expired. Since 2006 the Postal Service has implemented significant cost-saving measures, including reducing positions and work hours, and consolidating facilities and delivery routes. 14:08 Rep. Elijah Cummings: Taking all these requirements and trends together, the Postal Service reported a net loss of $5.3 billion for fiscal year 2016, which represents a 10th consecutive year of net losses. We have repeatedly discussed the deteriorating financial condition at the Postal Service in this committee, but the situation is now worsened by unprecedented lack of any Senate-confirmed members on the Postal Service’s Board of Governors. Because many key management decisions are reserved by statute to the Senate-confirmed board members, there are many actions, such as establishing rates, class, and fees for products, that the Postal Service simply cannot take now. The need for postal reform is as urgent as it ever was. Fortunately, we also may be closer than ever to enacting reform. We must press ahead—all of us. 18:50 Rep. Gerald Connolly: I want to commend Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for their leadership in holding together this coalition—not easy—and it’s a bipartisan coalition that helped write this bill. And especially Chairman Chaffetz could have yielded to the temptation, in light of the circumstances of 2017, to start all over again, and he didn’t do that. We worked together, we held it together, and I want to thank all the stakeholders represented in this room and those not in this room for understanding we can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. 24:25 Megan Brennan: The Postal Service is self-funded. We pay for our operations through the sale of postal products and services and do not receive tax revenues to support our business. Over the past decade, total mail volume declined by 28%. First-class mail, which makes the greatest contribution to covering the cost of our networks, declined by 36%. In response, we have streamlined our operations, restructured our networks, reduced the size of our workforce, and improved productivity. As a result of these efforts, we’ve achieved annual cost savings of approximately $14 billion. We also successfully stabilized marketing-mail revenues and grew our package business, which together drive e-commerce growth. However, given the constraints imposed by law, all of those actions cannot offset the negative impacts caused by the consistent decline in the use of first-class mail. The Postal Service is required to maintain an extensive network necessary to fulfill our universal service obligation to deliver the mail to every address six days a week, regardless of volume. The cost of the network continues to grow as approximately one million new delivery points are added each year. However, less volume, limited pricing flexibility, and increasing costs means that there is less revenue to pay for our growing delivery network and to fund other legally mandated costs. Since 2012 the Postal Service has been forced to default on $33.9 billion in mandated payments for retiree health benefits. Without these defaults, the deferral of critical capital investments, and aggressive management actions, we would not have been able to pay our employees and suppliers, or deliver the mail. Despite our achievements in growing revenue and improving operational efficiency, we cannot overcome systemic financial imbalances caused by business-model constraints. 26:40 Megan Brennan: We believe there is broad support for the core provisions of the bill you have introduced. By enacting this urgently needed legislation, which includes those provisions, the Postal Service can achieve an estimated $26 billion in combined cost reductions and new revenue over five years. Enactment of these provisions, favorable resolution of the Postal Regulatory Commission’s pricing-review system, and continued aggressive management actions will return the Postal Service to financial stability. Medicare integration is the cornerstone of your bill. The civilian federal government is not required to pre-fund retiree health benefits, but that obligation is imposed on the Postal Service. We are merely asking to be treated like any business that offers health benefits to its retirees and has to fund them. Full integration with Medicare is a universally accepted best practice in private sector. Requiring full Medicare integration for Postal Service retirees would essentially eliminate our unfunded liability for retiree health benefits. It is simply a matter of fairness to enable the Postal Service and our employees to fully utilize the benefits for which we have paid. We also strongly endorse the provision of the bill that would restore half of the exigent rate increase as a permanent part of our rate base. That provision will help us pay for the infrastructure necessary to fulfill our universal service obligation. 28:20 Megan Brennan: H.R. 756 is fiscally responsible and enables the Postal Service to invest in the future and to continue to provide affordable, reliable, and secure delivery service to every business and home in America. 30:30 Robert Taub: H.R. 756 is specifically designed to put the Postal Service on sound financial footing. 33:43 Lori Rectanus: The continued deterioration of the Postal Service’s financial condition is simply a truth that revenues are not keeping up with expenses, a trend since 2007. This means that over the last decade the Postal Service has had a net loss of over $60 billion. While much of this loss was in fact due to the nonpayment of retiree health pre-funding payments, the Postal Service still lost over $10 billion outside of this requirement and other requirements. The revenue-expense gap occurs because first-class mail, the most profitable mail, continues to decline and is now down to 1981 levels. The Postal Service has made significant efforts to grow revenue in other ways, such as with package services. In the meantime, however, expenses continue to grow, largely because of compensation and benefit payments for employees. This is due to salary increases, as well as a larger workforce, in the past several years to support the more labor-intensive package business. In fact, over the past three years, the workforce has actually increased by over 20,000 people, contrasting sharply with prior years when its size decreased greatly. 38:15 Arthur Sackler: We support this bill and urge its approval as promptly as possible. 41:26 Arthur Sackler: H.R. 756 provides an elegant solution to this profound financial problem, integrating postal annuitants into Medicare will save the Postal Service billions each year and follow the best practices of the private sector. Companies that offer health insurance to employees and retirees generally require them to join Medicare at age 65. 42:06 Arthur Sackler: The implications of this bleak financial situation are near existential for Postal Service in its current form, so we support H.R. 756 notwithstanding its one-time market-dominant postal rate increase of 2.15%. We accept this increase in this unique set of circumstances only as necessary to achieve this bill and stabilize the Postal Service. Congress has wisely delegated rate setting to the postal agencies, but with respect, the industry will be compelled to oppose any effort to regard this bill as a precedent for other legislated rate increases. The industry has long supported the self-sustaining postal system, funded entirely by postage. That remains the best course from our perspective. And that is the beauty of your bill. It vastly improves the Postal Service’s financial stability, keeps the Postal Service self-sustaining, and wards off any prospect of a taxpayer bailout, as you noted, Mr. Chairman. 44:25 Fredric Rolando: The bill has broad support across the mailing industry, including business and labor, and is based on best practices in the private sector. 45:30 Fredric Rolando: Over the past decade, postal employees have worked diligently to restructure operations, cut costs, and sharply increase productivity, in response to technological change and the Great Recession. Despite the loss of more than 200,000 jobs, we’ve managed to preserve our networks and to maintain our capacity to serve the nation. But only Congress can address our biggest financial challenge: the unique and unsustainable burden to pre-fund future retiree health benefits decades in advance. No other enterprise in the country faces such a burden, which was imposed by legislation in 2006. The expense of this mandate has accounted for nearly 90% of the Postal Service’s reported losses since 2007. Without a change in the law, the mandate will cost $6 billion this year alone. H.R. 756 would maximize the integration of Medicare and our federal health program for Medicare-eligible postal annuitants, most of whom have already voluntarily enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B. The proposal would also give us access to low-cost prescription drugs and other benefits provided to private-employer plans by the Medicare Modernization Act. The savings would help to reduce all of our premium costs and, therefore, pre-funding costs. This approach adopts a standard practice of large private companies that provide retiree health insurance. It would effectively resolve the pre-funding burden that undermines the health of the Postal Service while only raising Medicare spending by one-tenth of one percent over 10 years. H.R. 756 also addresses a revenue shortfall caused by the expiration of the 2013 exigent rate increase, authorized by the Postal Regulatory Commission, to help the Postal Service recover from the permanent decline in mail volume caused by the Great Recession. The compromise adopted by your leadership bill, effectively restoring half of the exigent increase, is a reasonable one. 48:00 Fredric Rolando: All four postal unions urge the committee to adopt this legislation. 52:06 Rep. Jason Chaffetz: What is your current cash on hand; and then once you give me that number, then why isn’t that used to pay some of the payments that were due? You’ve defaulted, I believe, on five payments. Megan Brennan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we’ve defaulted for the past five years to the tune of $33.9 billion. Our current cash on hand is $8.2 billion. And a determination was made by the Temporary Emergency Committee, which consisted at the time of our lone independent governor, myself, and the deputy postmaster general, to default on that payment to ensure that we can serve sufficient cash, which for an organization of our size is arguable at best, but to reserve sufficient cash to ensure if there was any contingency that would occur in the near term, we could at least have some cushion. Chaffetz: I mean, you have more cash than some of the others who are in the mail industry, but where is that proper balance? Where’s… ? Brennan: When I think—that’s a concern, Mr. Chairman, because for an organization that has expenditures of more than $70 billion a year, we would submit that $8.2 billion is insufficient. That’s the concern for us. And, also, as noted by the Chairman, and we’ve discussed this, the fact that we have deferred on critical capital investments in the past five years to the tune of over $8.9 billion, that impacts our ability to compete and to generate additional revenues. Chaffetz: Tell us, if you can give me a perspective on your fleet management. There was a hearing I think Chairman Meadows chaired earlier about the fleet. We were concerned the Postal Service was going to come up with a very sizeable contract to… Explain to me, where you are in the fleet and your perspective on it. Brennan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well, we have one of the largest civilian fleets in the country, with over 212,000 vehicles travelling more than four million miles a day. The fleet, though, is at the end of its expected life, particularly our delivery vehicles that the average age is over 25 years, and the annual maintenance cost is over a billion dollars. So, we have an approach to look at the next-generation delivery vehicles, that currently we’re in the midst of a prototype-testing period where we’re working with six different suppliers to provide us with these vehicles that we will test over the course of the next 18 months. We also just—this week, actually—a request for proposal for a commercial off-the-shelf solution for right-hand-drive vehicles is expected. So, we’ve got a multi-prong approach looking at how to address the vehicle fleet. 58:35 Rep. Stephen Lynch: There are some concerns out there about the funding of that piece that will require postal employees to sign up for Medicare and that it is some type of giveaway. That’s what I’ve heard out there. Now, you and I know differently. But could you explain to me how much money the postal workers have contributed to Medicare but, in large part, have not participated in that? Could you describe that for me, please? Megan Brennan: Yes, Congressman. In our opinion, this is a question of fairness. We’re merely asking that we be treated like any other self-funded entity that provides retiree health benefits. As noted by a number of the panelists, it’s best practice in private sector. And that’s the ask from the Postal Service, and our employees and the Postal Service have paid more than $30 billion into the Medicare trust fund since the early ’80s. We’re just asking to receive the benefit for which employees have paid. 1:03:35 Rep. Blake Farenthold: You mentioned that part of your expenses is six-day delivery to everywhere. Is it worth looking at, at some point in the future, maybe not six days to everywhere for everything? I mean, to be competitive, maybe you do need six. And, actually, I think one of your competitor’s advantage is seven-day package delivery. Over Christmas, I got packages from Amazon that you guys brought on Sunday. Matter of fact, I got one a couple of weeks ago. Apparently you’re still doing it. So, is shrinking to a less-than-six-day delivery for non-packages a potential cost savings? Megan Brennan: Yeah, as you noted, we are delivering packages seven days in select locations, primarily major metropolitan areas. Farenthold: I’m happy Corpus Christi, Texas, is now a major metropolitan area. Brennan: I said primarily. And we are expanding that, because, certainly, we serve every home— Farenthold: Right. Brennan: —and every business, Congressman. To your point, and candidly, we’ve spent the better part of the past two years trying to build a coalition around core provisions of a bill likely to generate broad support. Farenthold: Right. Brennan: And that’s what we focused on. And, also, I would offer candidly, it’s been my experience that there’s no congressional consensus around moving to five-day delivery. Farenthold: Oh, I could tell you that for sure, as well. 1:06:02 Rep. Blake Farenthold: You talked about capital expenses, your biggest being vehicles. What are your big capital—just list off a couple of items that are your big capital items beyond vehicles. Megan Brennan: The information systems, our IT infrastructure, repair and alteration, facility modifications, additional capacity for package sortation. 1:17:56 Rep. Darrell Issa: Additionally, the United States Post Office, with the power of the government, if they chose to aggressively site in or near people’s homes cluster boxes that could safely hold packages, they would leapfrog in service capability what Amazon is trying to build at your corner gas station, wouldn’t they. And I guess I should take that to the postmaster general. Not, what are the problems, but if you did that, wouldn’t you, in fact, offer a service far better and far more distributed than that which Amazon is trying to build today in some parts of urban America? Megan Brennan: Congressman Issa, as you and I discussed, the Postal Service approach is all new, possible deliveries. As noted—excuse me—we add nearly a million a year. Based on the delivery characteristics, we either implement box on post at the end of your driveway or centralized delivery. And just looking at last year, where when we looked at the growth by mode, over 750,000 new deliveries were centralized. So, there's certainly an efficiency gain associated with that. 1:26:40 Rep. Jody Hice: One of the issues that came up specifically dealt with Amazon and a serious competitor that they are, and one of the areas of technology that they’ve excelled in, obviously, is drone delivery. Is there any looking into consideration of drone delivery with the Postal Service? Megan Brennan: Currently, our engineering group is researching, and we’re probably on the peripheral of this advanced technology, currently just learning. And I would say whether it’s drone exploration or any other type of new technology, Congressman, we need the capital monies to be able to invest. Hice: Well, I understand the need for capital monies to invest, but you are looking into the possibility? Brennan: We’re exploring and recognizing what’s happening in the industry. Right now, we’re not an early adopter, I would categorize that, but we’re certainly aware of what’s happening in that space. Hice: Okay, so, at the current time, then, the commitment is to continue with the vehicle delivery. Brennan: Correct. 1:45:15 Rep. Mark Meadows: The gentleman recognizes the gentleman with the stylish glasses, from Missouri, for five minutes. Rep. William Lacy Clay: And, Mr. Chair, I noticed that the ranking member took some of my time. Oh, no—they restarted. Very good. Meadows: The gentleman will recognize that the chairman is always fair with— Clay: All right. Meadows: —his time. Clay: The— Meadows: We’re glad the gentleman from Missouri could get out of bed to come to this hearing. 1:49:00 Megan Brennan: We just recently, Congressman, raised prices on our market dominant, within that strict price cap— Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Brennan: —of eight-tenths of a percent. We also have the 10-year price review before the Commission, currently. 1:51:23 Rep. Mark Meadows: Well, you said all four unions support this bill, with no changes. Is that correct? With no changes, you support this bill, all four unions. Fredric Rolando: Yeah, all four unions support this bill. I think we mentioned two tweaks in the written testimony that we thought would be helpful. Meadows: Yeah, and then, but if those two tweaks don’t get done, this is better than— Rolando: Totally support this bill coming out of committee. Absolutely. 2:07:14 Arthur Sackler: I think that with the establishment of so much trust and reliance on electronic media, there is little that can be done to reverse some of the outflow of mail. But if you add a huge increase on top of that, it’s going to accelerate it dramatically. That’s the worry of the industry. Rep. Glenn Grothman: Okay, you consider the 2.1% not a significant increase? Is that what you’re telling us? Sackler: It is significant, but it is one that, to put it colloquially, we’re all holding our noses and accepting in the spirit of compromise in order to get this bill done. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by Missing Cat! Please help! One of our listeners in Boqueron, Puerto Rico is missing his furry friend. Please keep an eye out for him if you are in the area.

CD152: Air Traffic Control Privatization

11 juni 2017 | 105 min

Air traffic controllers in the United States are a part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but Congress is seriously considering changing that. In this episode, we examine a plan being developed to transfer control of the nation’s air traffic to a new non-profit corporation. Also, with former FBI Directory Jim Comey’s testimony to Congress dominating the news cycle, we take a trip down memory lane to the Bush years when Jim Comey testified before Congress in one of the most riveting moments in Congressional hearing history. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Additional Reading Article: by Aarian Marshall, Wired, June 6, 2017. Article: by Rob Mark, Flying Mag, May 25, 2017. Article: by Rob Mark, Flying Mag, March 16, 2017. Article: by John Bresnahan, Anna Palmer, and Jake Sherman, Politico, April 16, 2015. Article: by Tanita Gaither, Hawaii News Now, 2014. Article: by Robert Poole and Dorothy Robyn, Reason Foundation, November 3, 2003. References Boston University: Hartzell Prop: Office of Inspector General: NATCA: Reason Foundation: Reason Foundation: GovTrack: GovTrack: GovTrack: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: YouTube: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, May 17, 2017. Watch on Witnesses The Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation Joseph W. Brown, President, Hartzell Propeller, Inc. Mr. Robert W. Poole, Jr., Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation Mr. Paul M. Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Assocation Ms. Dorothy Robyn, Independent Policy Analyst Timestamps & Transcripts 3:33 Chairman Bill Shuster: Today we’ll focus on the need for air traffic control reform, divesting the high-tech service, 24/7 service business, from government and shifting it to an independent not-for-profit entity. 4:20 Chairman Bill Shuster: Everyone should be reminded of what happens if we choose the status quo. It means our system will be subject to more budget constraints, sequestration, and threats of government shutdowns. Sequestration isn’t gone. In 2013 sequestration led to furloughs and reduced operations, controlled our hiring, and training suffered, and the FAA bureaucrats tried to shut down contract towers. Fiscal constraints continue to be tight, as so in the federal budget, and that’s not going to change anytime soon, and it may get worse. We continue to rely on the unstable, dysfunctional, annual appropriations cycle. We have had no stand-alone transportation appropriations bill since 2006, and over that time period, Congress has passed 42 continuing resolutions to keep government doors open. The FAA also relies on authorizing legislation, and it took Congress 23 short-term extensions over five years before it passed previous long-term FAA authorization bill. Under these conditions, the FAA bureaucracy has been trying to undertake a high-tech modernization of air traffic control system for over three decades. It’s not working, and it’s never going to work. 5:52 Chairman Bill Shuster: Some argue that the latest attempt to modernize NextGen is showing some signs of progress, but we all know any progress is incremental at best and only in locations where the FAA partnered with the private sector. And let’s remember the name NextGen was really just a rebranding of the FAA’s ongoing failed efforts to modernize the system. NextGen is just a marketing term, not an actual technology or innovation, but it sounds catchier so Congress will fund it year after year. But the bottom line is there should be far more progress by now. Money has never been the problem; Congress has provided more than $7.4 billion for NextGen since 2004. Results of the problem: according to the FAA’s own calculation, the return on the taxpayers’ 7.4 billion invested has only been about 2 billion in benefits. And we’ve still got a long way to go. According to the DOT inspector general in 2014, the projected initial cost for NextGen was $40 billion, but they’ve said it could double or triple and be delayed another decade. Over the years, the FAA has described NextGen as transformation of America’s air transportation network. They also said it will forever redefine how we manage the system. But in 2015 the National Research Council confirmed what was already becoming painfully clear. According to the NRC, the original version of NextGen is not what was being implemented. It is not broadly transformational and is not fundamental change in the way the FAA handles air traffic. Only in the federal government would such a dismal record be considered a success. 7:40 Chairman Bill Shuster: Some have proposed targeting reforms to fix the FAA’s problems, but that’s an approach we’ve already tried many, many times, starting in the 1980s. Since 1995, Congress has passed various reforms to allow the FAA to run more like a business. Procurement reform in 1995 for the FAA to develop a more flexible acquisition-management system. Additional reforms in 1995 exempt the FAA from most federal personnel rules and allow the FAA to be able to implement more flexible rules for hiring, training, compensating, and assigning personnel. Procurement reforms in 1996 developed a cost accounting system. Additional personnel reforms in 1996 allowed FAA to negotiate pay. Organizational reforms in 2000 to establish a COO position, additional forms to allow greater pay so the FAA could recruit good candidates, particularly for a COO position. Additional reform in 2000 by the executive order to create the Air Traffic Organization. Organizational reforms in 2003 to establish the Joint Planning and Development Office to better coordinate NextGen. Reforms in 2012 to establish a chief NextGen officer. Property management reforms in 2012 to allow a better process for realignment and consolidation of facilities. All have failed to result in the FAA being run more like a business. The FAA has always performed like a massive bureaucracy and will continue to. 9:33 Chairman Bill Shuster: Last year’s bill that passed out of committee will serve as a framework for new legislation, but we are open to change. We want to talk to people and get their ideas, and that’s what we hope to hear today. 9:45 Chairman Bill Shuster: Our air traffic control reform proposal will be based on the following principles: create an independent not-for-profit corporation to provide air traffic services; fund the new service provider by fees assessed for air traffic service; free the new service provider from governmental dysfunction, political interference, and the uncertainty of the federal-budget process; create a governance structure that is right sized and balanced; and a board with sole fiduciary responsibility to the organization—and I need to repeat that—fiduciary responsibility. That’s a legal term. If you’re on a board of directors in the United States and you have the fiduciary responsibility, it’s not to who appointed you to the board; it’s to the board, it’s to that organization is who you’re responsible for, and that’s the law. That’s just not some pie in the sky. People can be removed and be prosecuted if they’re not doing their fiduciary responsibilities. 11:47 Chairman Bill Shuster: Give the new service provider the ability to access financial markets, leverage private funding for multi-year capital projects needed to modernize the system. 12:35 Chairman Bill Shuster: The only way to realize these benefits is to get the government out of the way. As President Ronald Regan said, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem. And we see all over the world people turning to the private sector—whether it’s Europe or it’s Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada—look around the world: countries, governments, are looking to partner with the private sector because they see they do it better. 13:01 Chairman Bill Shuster: Since the introduction of the Air Act over a year ago, this has been an ongoing process of education and discussion. We’ve held over 130 meetings with stakeholders, including both supporters and opponents of the Air Act. We’ve had numerous meetings with members of the House, the Senate, the White House, and other committees. These meetings have been extremely productive and give us new ideas to improve the legislation. 14:20 Chairman Bill Shuster: Air traffic control is not an inherently governmental function; it’s a 24/7 technology service. For those who worry that the system is too complex, I would say this: the most complex thing in the air space is not the air traffic control system, it’s the airplane. It’s the people at Boeing and Airbus and Cessna and the people that build these aircraft—that’s the most complicated thing in the system. And the FAA already oversees those highly sophisticated private-sector aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and flight operations at arm’s length. We don’t build airplanes today, the government does, and that’s the most complex thing in the system. 16:26 Rep Peter DeFazio: We are now on the cusp of a 21st century system that will be the envy of the world. And other experts—MITRE Corporation, others—say a massive change now, where you cleave the FAA into parts, you leave the most vital thing to our manufacturers—certification, subject to appropriations, sequestrations, and shutdowns—you leave the most vital thing that is important to the American public, which is safety and oversight of safety, subject to sequestration, shutdowns, and political meddling. The only thing that gets moved is the ATO, and the ATO would be moved and essentially effectively controlled by the airlines. I know that the airlines aren’t here today, perhaps because they haven’t looked so great recently in public, and I’d also note that the airlines themselves have had outages 36 times—major outages—36 times since 2015. I’m not aware that the national air traffic control system has had a major disruption, with exception of deliberate sabotage by a contractor who knew how to get the system and the backup system. But the airlines, on their own, with no sabotage, have managed to melt down their dispatch and their reservation systems 36 times, stranding millions of people, so they can do it better, right? 18:15 Rep Peter DeFazio: In terms of funding, the FAA has currently projected, over the next decade, to be 97% self-funded. Unfortunately, the way our colleagues around here and the budget process works, despite the fact they’re self-funded, they can be sequestered or shut down. That’s a simple, simple fix. Take it off budget, make it into a trust-funded program. They are raising the revenues. That’s a simple fix. No, we’re going to cleave it in half, put vital functions over here—still subject to sequestration shutdown—and take this one part and put it over here and say somehow they’re going to self-fund. Now, the question, of course, is, how are they going to self-fund? The airlines have told me time and time again, they hate the ticket tax, they hate the ticket tax; they say, that’s our money. I say, no, it’s not your money; I buy a ticket, I pay the tax, the tax goes to the government; it’s not your money. They say, no, no, that affects the price of the ticket and competition and everything else; it’s a horrible thing. So, if they do away with the ticket tax, there goes 70% of the revenues. Well, what are they going to put in its place? Oh, it’s going to be a per-operation charge or something; we don’t know. Congress will have no say over this. 22:11 Rep Peter DeFazio: See all that yellow? That’s the U.S. That is going to be totally ADS-B, satellite-based, in 2020, with an exception—the airlines that petitioned and been given permission from the FAA for exceptions because many of their older planes do not have modern-enough GPS systems to use the new ADS-B. The airlines again have petitioned that they have a number more years before those planes would be able to use the ADS-B system. Not the FAA, the airlines themselves. 28:38 Rep Peter DeFazio: They can set user fees. User fees, I consider to be taxes. I consider the ticket tax to be a user fee, but we can argue semantics over that. But they are going to determine how the system is funded, which is tantamount to taxation without review by the Ways and Means committee or Congress. 37:00 Joseph Brown: Now, as a pilot, 4 to 500 hours a year, my office is the cockpit; and when I fly, I find a modern system, a high-functioning system, and I’ve seen it evolve over time, right before my eyes. I find controllers that do their job well, I find easy access, and powerful technology. I can file a flight plan from my smartphone and get my proposed route back, before I get to the airport, in a text. When I take off, I have GPS navigation systems on board that allow me to fly point to point all over this country. Couple months ago, I took off out of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area and got cleared direct to Burlington, Vermont, 1300 miles ahead. And while I’m flying, I have the veil of safety brought to you by ADS-B, which is in fact deployed, giving me traffic callouts and separation cues and weather in my route of flight. And when I come in for landing, I can pick from 3,000 precision approaches, brought to me by a NextGen feature called WAAS, including at my home airport, which I value tremendously on foul-weather days. So, the bottom line for me is, NextGen is working—it works for me every day—and it’s getting stronger all the time. And from a technology standpoint, I believe we’re on the right track. 43:30 Robert Poole: Business Roundtable group began in 2011, made an initial presentation to A4A in the spring of 2012. We got a pretty cool, if not negative, reception at that point. No one wanted to restart the battles that had raged over this issue in previous decades. Everything changed in the spring of 2013, thanks to the sequester. Controller furloughs closed FAA Academy; threatened closure of 189 contract towers got everybody’s attention. In response, A4A, NATCA, and AOPA all requested new conversations with the BRT working group. And in May 2013, all three groups in the conference room at Business Roundtable agreed that an air traffic control corporation, converting the ATO into a corporation, self-funded, and out of the federal budget was the best approach. After this happened, that fall, Governor Engler and several others briefed Chairman Shuster on the proposal. This was not coming from the airlines. BRT group included a former FAA administrator, a former chief operating officer of the ATO, two former senior officials of USDOT and several consultants. Our governing model, as I said, was patterned after Nav Canada’s. Their stakeholder board represents airlines, general aviation, unions, and the government plus four other private citizens selected by the stakeholder members. 47:50 Paul Rinaldi: NATCA members guide approximately 70,000 flights per day in the United States, ensuring over 900 million passengers arrive safely at their destination every year. The United States Airspace System is considered the gold standard in aviation community, but that status is at risk. Unstable, unpredictable funding and status quo threatens it. We need a stable, reliable, predictable funding stream to operate our current system and allow for growth in the United States aviation system. 48:30 Paul Rinaldi: We also oppose any system that would put ATC in a for-profit model. In order for NATCA to consider a support of any proposal, it must meet our four core principles of reform. First, any new system must keep the safety and the efficiency of the National Airspace System the top priority. Second, any reform must protect our members’ employment relationship. This must maintain our members’ pay, benefits, retirement system, healthcare system, as well as the work rules in our contract. Third, any reform system must have a stable, predictable funding stream adequately enough to support air traffic control services, growth, new users, staffing, hiring, training, long-term modernization projects. Also, this reform must provide a stable funding stream through a transition period. Fourth, any reform must maintain a dynamic, diverse aviation system that continues to provide services to all segments of the aviation community and to all airports across America. 50:10 Paul Rinaldi: Please don’t take NATCA’s position as a need for stable, predictable funding as to mean the appropriators have not done their job. The appropriators in both chambers of Congress, on both sides of the aisles, have done their job well. The problem stems from lack of regular order we’ve been experiencing for over 10 years now. This lack of regular order has led to stop-and-go funding, many threats of shutdown, and our current staffing shortage. We’re at a 28-year low of fully certified controllers. We have 10,532 certified controllers; approximately 3,000 of them are eligible to retire at this time. 50:47 Paul Rinaldi: Unstable funding has prevented on-time implementation of NextGen modernization projects. NATCA takes pride in our role in partnering with the FAA in developing and implementing important modernization projects. We have successfully worked on many over the years. Unfortunately, all have been impacted by uncertainty of funding. If you just look at FY 2018, as we approached April 28 of this year, the FAA shifted its focus from NextGen to shutdown. We, then, received a one-week funding extension, followed by a five-month funding bill. While we’re elated over the funding bill, five months is certainly no way to plan for the future in aviation. Congress needs to pass an FAA reauthorization bill that provides stable, reliable, predictable funding. Congress should exempt the FAA employees from indiscriminate sequester cuts, otherwise we will see a hiring freeze, reduced staffing, furloughs, delays, reduced capacity, and suspension of key NextGen programs. 52:07 Dorothy Robyn: I am a policy wonk, and I’m a Democrat. I testified before some of you during the five years I spent in the Obama administration—first as the deputy under secretary of defense for Installations and Environment and then as the GSA Public Buildings commissioner, following the scandal at GSA. Previously, I spent eight years on President Clinton’s White House economic team, where, during his second term, I was the point person on aviation and air traffic control, among other issues. A policy focus I maintained after leaving the White House, first at Brookings and then as an economic consultant. The first point I want to make this morning is that corporatization of the air traffic control system is not a radical idea, nor is it a Republican idea. The Clinton administration tried unsuccessfully to do this in 1995 with its proposal to create a self-supporting government corporation—USATS—which would be run by a CEO and a board and regulated at arms’ length by the FAA. At the time, only four countries had corporatized their air traffic control system; now, more than 60 other countries have done so. 53:40 Dorothy Robyn: Air traffic control is not an inherently governmental function; it is not inherently governmental. Keeping planes safely separated is complex and safety-critical, but it is a purely operational process that follows well-established rules. Like running an airline or manufacturing a Boeing 787, air traffic control can be performed by a non-governmental entity as long as it is subject to oversight by FAA safety regulators whose job is inherently governmental. 54:50 Dorothy Robyn: Is it a monopoly? Yes, at least for now, but the telephone system was a monopoly for many years, and we didn’t have the government operate that. 55:03 Dorothy Robyn: The current arrangement is flawed on safety grounds. This is important. Echoing safety experts worldwide, ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, has long called for the air traffic control regulator to be independent of the operation it regulates in order to avoid conflicts of interest. We are one of the only industrial nations in which the same agency both regulates and operates the air traffic control system. 1:06:00 Rep Peter DeFazio: So, let’s see, if I think about it, funding, sequestration, shutdowns—that all has to do with Congress. So if we had the FAA with its current funding sources, 97% projected over the next 10 years, so just a few efficiencies would get us to 100% self-funded, without meddling, exempt them from sequestration and shutdowns, would that solve many of your concerns—I’m not saying all—but would that solve many of your concerns, Mr. Rinaldi? Paul Rinaldi: Yes. 1:07:01 Peter DeFazio: Who would be responsible if the ATC failed financially in this country? Joseph Brown: Well, that’s one of my risk calculus when I think about this problem. The day the assets move out of the public sector and into the private sector, we’ve moved the essence of the system and the people with it. And there’s no way we can spend one day without that system full functioning and healthy and thriving. And so all the financial risk accrues to the people, regardless of where that monopoly reports. DeFazio: So, too big to fail. Brown: Too big to fail is my concern. 1:10:45 Joseph Brown: First, you have to invent and deploy the technology, which has generally been the FAA’s purpose, but then the user community has to equip and in many cases change equipment to experience the benefits, and that’s exactly where we are right now, and that’s why there’s an inflection point coming up. We have ADS-B fully deployed on a nationwide basis in terms of the ground structure, but only a percentage of the aircraft flying enjoy the benefits because they are not ADS-B compliant. Likewise, that will be true of Data Comm and other technologies. So, where we are right now is the FAA has done a lot of heavy lifting, and the users have to equip. 1:12:08 Chairman Bill Shuster: I would oppose going for a for-profit organization. 1:14:08 Rep Rick Larsen: Can this system be safe and broken, or should I drive? Calvin Scovel: It is safe, of course. And that’s— Larsen: How can it be safe if it’s broken? Scovel: —certainly a big plus for the FAA. Larsen: It seems to me that there’s a fundamental argument going on here— Scovel: Yeah. Larsen: —that says we have to go to privatization because the system is broken that actually controls the airspace. And if it’s broken, I don’t know how it can be safe, and so it would support the privatization argument. However, if it can’t be safe and broken, it would seem to undermine the whole argument for privatization. Scovel: I would characterize the system currently, it certainly is safe, and the record shows that. For a number of years now, no commercial aviation fatal accidents. As far as broken, I would take issue with that characterization. I would say certainly modernization has been lagging far behind where it should be, but it’s not broken. Larsen: Well, that’s good to hear. I’ll cancel my car rental. 1:31:37 Joseph Brown: I don’t think the comparison of our national airspace and management system to Canada is anything other than an exercise in gleaning some observations, but it’s not proper to directly compare. I mean, for sure, in our system we’re driving a much more substantial portion of our economy out of the aviation sector and the airspace that supports it. I mean, we have 10 times more pilots, 50,000 flights a day—it’s a wholly different organization. So for me, when I think about Canada, I believe that they made a choice that they thought suited their purposes with the role of aviation and its infrastructure, but we’re faced with entirely different objectives here, and as far as I’m concerned, the system that we’ve been living in has done a masterful job of adjudicating all of the interests of stakeholders, all the interests of our expansive country and the states that are in it and their needs, and so I can applaud things they’ve done that have worked for their country, but I also very much applaud things we’ve done in our country. And I would take exception to one thing Ms. Robyn said, which is she characterized our system as a laggard. That is just false. We have the technology deployed in our system today that no other country can rival. We lead in our NextGen initiative. So I’m pretty proud of where we are, and by the way, I know it because I fly it. It’s not a mystery, and it’s not a theory. 1:34:15 Calvin Scovel: As you know, my office looked at the air traffic control organizations for the other four countries. And we were told by officials in those organizations that they consider part of their borrowing authority to be leveragable or to be recognized by private lenders because, ultimately, should something drastic go wrong, the government would step in behind them. I’m not representing that that would be the case here—that’s your policy call to make—I’m simply relaying what officials for other air traffic control organizations have told us about their systems. Rep Albio Sires: So, in those four countries, they were on the hook? Is that what you’re saying? Scovel: Conceivably, they may be. 1:38:50 Rep Mark Meadows: Why would you suggest that the federal government can do something more efficiently than, perhaps, private stakeholders? Joseph Brown: You know, my calculus— Meadows: Can the federal government run your business better than you do? Brown: I would hope not. Meadows: I would hope not either, so why would you suggest that they can do that here? Brown: Well, because we’re talking about a range of interests here that’s much larger than my business. I mean, my business, I get to pick my product, I get to pick my customers, I get to decide what I think the value proposition is, I get course corrected by competition— Meadows: And it’s efficient that way, right? Brown: Yeah, but the— Meadows: So what if we had stakeholders who were making the same exact decisions that you’re making, with some parameters that are out there, wouldn’t you think that that would be more efficient? Brown: Actually, you’ve outlined my top concern which is that if this organization picks their customers and picks their service level and picks their product— Meadows: But, but— Brown: —they are no longer going— Meadows: But the chairman’s— Brown: —to pay taxes on public— Meadows: —already said that that can’t happen. We have an airspace that is available to everybody. Unknown Speaker: Gentleman’s time’s expired. Meadows: Thank you for [unclear] point. Unknown Speaker: Mr. Brown, you can finish, if you wish. Brown: I believe that I’ve made my point which is that the thing about this enterprise, one of the things that I’m concerned with is that it’s a coalition of stakeholders with a shared purpose which is to serve their own ends. And the thing that I like about the federal role in our airspace today is that is adjudicates an enormous diversity of needs in this community, whether it’s the Alaskan pilot who’s flying kids to school or whether it’s my business in Ohio or air tractors in Olney, Texas, they all have a seat at the table, and this has been demonstrated in this room today. Meadows: Yeah, my time has expired. 1:49:30 Dorothy Robyn: The FAA is two hatted; it does two very different things. It regulates all aspects of aviation, and that is an inherently governmental activity. You cannot write a contract that makes it possible for the private sector to carry that out. It requires judgment calls that the private sector can’t make. It also operates in the air traffic control system. There is nothing government—that is not inherently governmental; that is operational. That is no different than when GSA goes to the private sector and has them build a building. It is not an inherently governmental activity. The idea that, yes, the regulatory part of the FFA needs help. That part needs help. I agree with Mr. Brown. The idea, though, that in order to fix that, you don’t spin off the non-governmental part; that’s illogical to me. That’s exactly what you want to do—spin off the non-inherently governmental parts so that the FAA can stick to its knitting, focus on the regulatory function. 2:23:25 Rep Lloyd Smucker: Can you explain why you believe a regulated air traffic service provider would be outside of democratic oversight? Joseph Brown: It’s my understanding that this would be empowered as a business that can effectively decide what it invests in, how much it borrows, what technologies it picks, maybe what— Smucker: But still with congressional oversight. Brown: Well, are we going to have a committee for how they spend their money and what they invest in and where they deploy pappies and vassies and where they put up the next Data Community tower? Because if we are, why would we carve it out? 2:31:00 Rep John Duncan: I chaired the aviation subcommittee for six years, from 1995 until 2001, and Speaker Gingrich asked me to hold the first hearings on the proposed air traffic control corporation—Ms. Robyn, I think, will remember that—and at that point, I think almost everybody, maybe with the exception of Mr. Poole, was opposed to it and so forth. But the chairman, Chairman Shuster’s done an amazing job and now has brought some groups and people on board that were not in favor of this proposal at the time. 3:11:34 Paul Rinaldi: September will be here before we know it. We will be looking at another possible government shutdown, and as I said in my opening statement, as we lead up to a shutdown, the FAA turns their attention from NextGen or from UAV implementation to shutdown procedures. For the last 10 years, it happens a couple times a year, and we lose this time; and it’s four or five weeks leading up to it, five weeks on the back end of it, and they’re not sure what sequester is going to bring us if we actually do get a budget and do get a bill passed or what type of cuts we’re going to have into the aviation system. Hearing: , House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, May 2, 2017. Witnesses William McGee, Consumers Union Aviation Consultant Scott Kirby, United Airlines President Timestamps & Transcripts 2:34:43 Rep Dina Titus: We’ve heard all this kind of ranting about how bad the airlines are and all these unfortunate experiences, and yet pretty soon this committee is set to consider a proposal to privatize air traffic control and hand over billions of dollars’ worth of investment and assets to a private corporation that’s going to be controlled by y’all, by the airlines, and then you’ll be able to run it as you see fit. Now, I’m opposed to that for a number of reasons, primarily because of how it’s going to leave customers kind of in the lurch, but my question is, what do you have to show that means you’re going to be able to take over this corporation and do well by your customers from that angle any better than you do from your angle that you are now? For example, there’re questions like, how much is the traveler going to have to pay to this corporation; what kind of things have you done at your airline in terms of routing that might be better that you’ll do through this corporation; terms of investment and technology, management decisions; what have you done about your own scheduling? All of those questions that have seemed to be criticized today, how are they going to translate into your being able to control air traffic control system through a private board? So, maybe y’all could just tell me some of the things you’re doing that would make an argument for why you should control that aspect of airlines as well. Scott Kirby: Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. And we believe that one of the ways we can actually help our customers is through ATC privatization. The worst thing we do to our customers is the long delays and cancellations. And those lead to customer service problems, they lead to the customer that gets to McCarran and is upset, and we want to fix that. And the FAA is a fantastic partner, and they want to fix that as well, but they’re handicapped today by the model, by the model where they do annual budgets, where investing for the future and the kinds of investments we need to make for the future are hard for the FAA to do in the normal course of business in the government. And the kinds of things that we could do to make the process better is, for example, you have more sophisticated GPS technology in your car than we use on aircraft today. We have these systems, and we could fly straight-line routes, but we still fly zigzag to highways in the sky to get from Washington to Las Vegas. We could do things like continuous-descent approaches. So today we’re at 35,000 feet, we step down in each one. It’s like driving your car and slamming on the accelerator and then hitting the brake, slamming on the accelerator—and we burn gas, and we take more time. All of that could allow us to fly shorter paths and get our customers there quicker. And we believe it’s one of the best things we could do for customer service is to reform the ATC program, and one of the best ways to do that is FAA privatization, not because the FAA is doing a bad job—they do a wonderful job—but the process is designed to be difficult and particularly for making long-term investments. 3:58:43 Rep Peter DeFazio: The question would be, well, now if we give control of the air traffic system to the airlines—effective control—four seats on a 13-person board, what do you think that means for customers and efficiency? William McGee: Well, it’s going to be particularly hard felt in the high-density airports and the busiest airports in the country. Now, I mean, what you just said is obviously a critical-enough issue: 17 flights scheduled at the same time. But underlining that is another problem that hasn’t really been discussed and that is the outsourcing—and it is outsourcing; the airlines call it partnering—but outsourcing of mainline flights to regional carriers. Up until recently, I don’t know if it’s still on there, but the Regional Airline Association on its homepage posted about the fact that not only more than 50% of all domestic departures operated by regionals on behalf of major carriers, but in addition they boasted of the fact that most of the departures every morning between New York and Washington, two of the busiest airports, not just in the country but on the planet—LaGuardia and Washington National—are operated by regionals. So, we have to ask ourselves, is that the best use of those slots to use smaller aircraft on some of the highest— DeFazio: So you’re saying that just because you’ve got a small aircraft and basically, maybe, you can follow it a tiny bit more closely, a little bit more closely, but because of wake turbulence, you’re taking up, basically, a slot with 60 people on board versus a slot with 180 people on board. McGee: Absolutely. I mean, I’m rusty on some of these issues; it’s been a long time since I worked as an airline dispatcher. But the bottom line is that, as they used to say, all metal requires x amount of space between it. So whether it’s a large aircraft or a small aircraft, there are differences with wake turbulence and things like that. But the bottom line is, again, are we using—these are public resources, let’s remember. These are not airline resources. The slots, they belong to the public. They’re treated as if they were private domain—but are we using them to the best ability in many ways, not just in terms of safety and efficiency but also in terms of the carbon footprint? 4:01:50 William McGee: And I think we also want to ask, well, why would they do that? Now, the response often comes from the airlines that customers prefer high frequency to consolidating flights. But there’s also another factor that doesn’t get discussed as much and that is the competition factor. In other words, if you have scarce slots at LaGuardia and you’re trying to prevent the competition from low-cost carriers, then use more frequencies out of those airports. Again, these are the most high ensity airports that we’re talking about. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD151: AHCA – The House Version (American Health Care Act)

28 maj 2017 | 109 min

The American Health Care Act, the Republican plan for a new health care system, passed the House of Representatives at lightning speed. In this episode, get the backstory on the reckless process used to pass the bill, learn how it changed from the original version, and find out how the Congressional Budget Office expects the bill would affect you. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bill Outline Bill Outline Title I: Energy and Commerce Subtitle A: Patient Access to Public Health Programs : Repeals the at the end of 2018 : Prohibits any Federal funding for any non-profit that performs abortions for a year Subtitle B: Medicaid Program Enhancement : Reduces Medicaid funding : Ends the Medicaid expansion... For people at the end of 2019 Ends the States' option at the end of 2017 People in this category who have Medicaid on December 31, 2019 will be and will keep their insurance as long as they never go off of Medicaid The Federal funding increase for states covering grandfathered individuals and is the requirement that Medicaid cover “essential health benefits” as of January 1, 2020. : Prevents Medicaid for lottery winners : Gives $10 billion extra over five years to the “non-expansion States” : Forces States to verify Medicaid eligibility every six months and gives them more enforcement money : Allows States deny people Medicaid if they are not participating in "" The State decides how long the person has to work for in order to get Medicaid The State can't deny Medicaid to... Pregnant women or to women who have had a baby within the last 60 days Kids under age 19 Only parents with kids under the age of 6 or a disabled child Gives the States more money for enforcement Subtitle C – Per Capita Allotment for Medical Assistance : Caps Medicaid funding on a per capita basis. States that spend too much one year will have their Medicaid States will be allowed to get Subtitle D: Patient Relief and Health Insurance Market Stability : Repeals the lower out-of-pocket limits for low-income people effective in 2020 : Creates a to be administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give money to the States until the end of 2026. Funds : "high-risk individuals" buy insurance if they don't get coverage through their employer Giving money to insurance companies () so they will lower premiums Taxpayers will pay insurance companies to preventative care, including dental and vision & newborn care for people enrolled in health insurance in the State The fund is with $15 billion per year until 2020 and $10 billion per year until 2026. There will be an extra $8 billion a year put into the fund from 2018-2023 to pay for increased premiums and out-of-pocket costs of people in States that get a In order to receive money from the Federal fund, , starting with 7% in 2020 increasing to 50% by 2026 An extra $15 billion will go directly to health insurance companies. The rules in terms of whose claims will be paid for, the percentage of their premiums that would be paid, and the dollar amount at which the government will starting covering the insurance companies' costs will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services : Starting in 2019, people who purchase insurance after a coverage gap of 63 days will be charged a 30% penalty for a year. The insurance companies get to keep all the extra money. : The requirements that bronze, silver, gold, platinum level plans exist and must cover certain percentages of expenses and are repealed effective January 1, 2020. : Allows insurance companies to charge older people five times more than younger people (they’re currently allowed to charge three times more) : Starting in 2018, States can apply for a waiver for the individual and small group insurance plans from the national requirements and instead allow States to determine what essential health benefits need to be covered by insurance companies. Waiver applications from States are after 60 days Waivers will be granted if the State says that doing so would do : Reduce premiums Increase enrollment Stabilize the insurance market Increase the number of health plans offered. Waivers will be Starting in 2019, states can also get ("pre-existing conditions") if they did not have coverage for at least 63 days in lieu of the 30% surcharge. States can get this waiver as long as that state participates in the high-risk funds to help pay for individuals and insurance companies' costs. Insurance companies could limit coverage during the , not permanently. : Health insurers can't set rates based on gender and "Nothing in this act shall be construed as permitting health insurance issuers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions." Title I: Committee on Ways and Means Subtitle A: Repeal and Replace of Health-Related Tax Policy : Starting in 2018, the limits on the amount of advanced-paid tax credits that can be taken back from low income people will be repealed. : Allows tax credits to be used on “catastrophic-only” health insurance plans that are not listed on the exchanges and prohibits tax credits for any plan that covers abortions. : Repeals the tax credit for employers with fewer than 25 employees who want to provide health benefits to their employees starting in 2020 and prohibits tax credits for any health plan that covers abortion. : Reduces the tax penalties for failing to purchase insurance to $0 and back dates it to be effective in 2016. : Reduces the tax penalties for employers who fail to provide health benefits to their employees to $0 and back dates it to be effective in 2016. : Delays the start of a tax on insurance companies which charges a 40% excise tax on , which charge premiums more than $10,200/year ($850/month) for individuals until 2026. The 40% is only on the extra premiums charges above the cap. : Starting in 2017, over-the-counter drugs can be purchased with . : Starting in 2017, taxes on money from health savings accounts that is not used for medical expenses will be cut in half (from 20% to 10%) : Starting in 2017, the $2,500 limit on the amount that can be taken out of an employee’s paycheck for employer health plans that use “flexible savings accounts” is repealed. : Starting in 2017, repeals a , paid by manufacturers or importer, on sales of medical devices that are not generally purchased by the general public at retail stores. : Beginning in 2017, businesses who provide retiree prescription drug benefits that are at least as valuable as Medicare Part D can get a federal drug subsidy. This provision will allow those businesses to deduct the entire cost of providing that coverage even though a portion of the drug coverage is offset by the subsidy they receive. : People can get a tax deduction for medical care that is not paid for by insurance if those expenses exceed 10% of their gross income; this provision reduces that to 5.8 % starting in 2017. : No changes are actually made because the text of the new paragraphs are exactly the same as current law. : Starting in , this bill creates a new tax credit structure tied to age instead of income for people making under $75,000 per year (the credits gradually reduce the more you make over $75,000) : Under age 30: $2,000/yr Ages 30-40: $2,500/yr Ages 40-49: $3,000/yr Ages 50-59: $3,500/yr Over age 60: $4,000/yr The credits are at $14,000 per family for the five oldest individuals People can only get the tax credits Credits Married couples are if they want the health coverage tax credits There are exceptions for couples who don't live together & domestic abuse victims : Starting in 2018, increases the amount than can be put in Health Savings Accounts Individual contribution limit raised from $2,250 to $5,000 per year. Family contribution limit raised from $4,500 to $10,000. : Starting in 2018, married couples over the age of 55 with high deductible plans will be able to contribute more to joint health savings accounts : Starting in 2018, if a health savings account is opened within 60 days of a person getting coverage with a high deductible, medical expenses for those 60 days will be eligible for payment from the HSA Subtitle B: Repeal of Certain Consumer Taxes : "Repeal of tax on prescription medications" Starting in 2017, a fee paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors will be repealed : "Repeal of health insurance tax" Starting in 2017, a fee on large health insurance companies, which is tied to and increases with premium growth rates, would be repealed. Subtitle C: Repeal of Tanning Tax : Starting on July 1, 2017, the 10% tax on indoor tanning is repealed. Subtitle D: Remuneration from Certain Insurers : Starting in 2017, insurance companies can get between $500,000 and $1 million. Subtitle E: Repeal of Net Investment Income Tax : Starting in 2017, a 3.8% tax on net income from stock market investments over $200,000 will be repealed. Additional Reading Article: by Matthew Yglesias, Vox, May 9, 2017. Article: by Bram Sable-Smith, NPR, May 8, 2017. Article: by Anna Maria Barry-Jester, FiveThirtyEight, May 2, 2017. Article: , Health Affairs, April 25, 2017. Article: by Jeff Sommer, The New York Times, March 18, 2017. Article: by Amy Martyn, Consumer Affairs, November 1, 2016. Report: , Deloitte, March 31, 2010. Article: by Elizabeth Mendes, Gallup, January 8, 2010. References CBO Cost Estimate: Life of the bill in the Rules Committee: HealthCare.gov: GovTrack: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House of Representatives, April 6, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 03:48 Rep Jim McGovern: We’re meeting on an amendment affecting millions of people’s healthcare, that came out of a backroom about an hour ago, with no vetting at all. I think the amendment, it was—the text was stamped, I think at 11:24 a.m. We were noticed for this meeting at 11:52. We waived the traditional hour so we can kind of move on with it, but there was no vetting at all, no process whatsoever, just a couple of good old boys with a typewriter, saying maybe this will work. 8:00 Rep Jim McGovern: If you guys want to deal with healthcare, introduce a bill; get co-sponsors on the bill; have the relevant committees—committees like Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce—do hearings, that’s a radical idea; invite people who know something about this issue—invite patients and patient-advocate groups and doctors and heads of hospitals, and invite some of your friends in the insurance industry—to come up and weigh in on your proposal; then you could do markups. Then get a CBO estimate, and after you get a CBO estimate and it’s marked up, then you come to Rules Committee, and you advance a bill to the floor. 13:40 Rep David Schweikert: If we were to actually have just sort of the top-line math question and say, let’s strip away some of the rhetoric and ideology and just sort of say “math,” when we look at our healthcare-utilization data, it’s functionally a hockey stick. Fifty percent of our population, the healthiest 50 percent, only use about three percent of healthcare costs, but our least healthy—our folks with chronic conditions, our brothers and sisters who really do suffer out there or have multiple issues laddered up—they represent five percent of that population, represents 50 percent of our spending. So you have this situation where we as a society, as a community, we’ve decided that guaranteed issue is out there, so now how do we find premium efficiency, rate efficiency? And as long as we’ve made this decision over here as a society, the fastest, most efficient thing we could do is actually sort of laddering some of that risk at that very top end. Last thing, and this may require a little more diving into it, and looking around, this is a smart committee, so you understand these things, if you were the actuaries building your rate profile, the ability to say we believe providing coverage for this population is going to cost this, you always have to design in a shock absorber because you wake up tomorrow and some people sign up for this coverage who have a chronic condition. The beauty of this type of risk-sharing model is that shock absorber that you have to build into your rate model can be substantially less because your top-end exposure is actually mitigated. So this was an occasion of, was there something we could do for lowering and making much more predictable the rate environment for that individual market, and this, I think, was the most elegant, simple way to get there. 38:55 Rep Alcee Hastings: In the brief time I’ve had to review it, the measure will provide $15 billion for the high-risk pools. Is that correct? All right. The language, specifically, setting it for is, “For the purpose of providing funding for the program there is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $15 billion for the period beginning January 1, 2018”—am I right?—“and ending on December 31, 2026.” So that’s $15 billion over a 10-year period of time. Get it straight, America. If this measure were to become law—there was a conservative gentleman, I can’t pull his name up right now, that said in the great scheme of things, it’s chump change because it simply would not provide the necessary money over the nine-year period of time. Hearing: , House of Representatives, May 3, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 24:05 Rep Jim McGovern: As you mentioned in your testimony, we found out last week that the MacArthur amendment mysteriously exempted Congress from the damaging effects of this bill, and I say mysteriously because nobody seems to know who put the provision in. And as the Vox reporter who uncovered the exemption put it, and I quote, “No one will fess up to putting the Congress exemption in the AHCA amendment.” Apparently, Representative MacArthur, your office told her that the Senate Budget added it, and the Senate Budget said no, in fact they didn’t. So, I guess I’m just curious. My first question is, where precisely did this exemption come from, and who thought that this bill was good enough for American families but not good enough for Congress? Mr. MacArthur, you wrote the amendment; did you put the provision in? Or Mrs. McSally, your bill tries to fix it; do you know anything about how the exemption got in there in the first place? Rep Martha McSally: Want to go? This budget-reconciliation process is not intuitive to really anyone. I mean, this is very arcane, and so as we’ve been going through this process in the House, trying to comply with Senate rules, content can only apply if it’s referred to specific Senate committees. And— McGovern: So somebody consciously knowing that—someone consciously moved the legislation forward without — McSally: So, again, my understanding is in order to comply with these arcane Senate rules of budget reconciliation, where if a matter is going to be referred to some other committee other than the ones that are listed in the original budget resolution, then it’ll no longer be applicable and the budget-reconciliation process doesn’t go forward. So, all I know is I heard it didn’t apply, and I said let’s fix it. McGovern: Who put it in? Who put the exemption in the first place? McSally: Yeah, and it specifically—just to be clear, it specifically related to his amendment. It’s not related to other provisions in the middle. So… McGovern: Yeah, so who put this exemption in in the beginning? Rep Tom MacArthur: Well, first, I don’t believe that members of Congress or our staffs should receive any special treatment, and I don’t think anybody believes that. McGovern: But Mrs. McSally’s bill— MacArthur: Well, as— McGovern: It’s not an amendment, it’s a bill; but it’s just to fix the fact that, is it a drafting error, or did somebody intentionally try to exempt Congress? MacArthur: It’s not an error, but the challenge, as Mrs. McSally has said, the challenge is getting House policy, drafting House policy, to conform with Senate rules. And I had every intention in drafting my amendment that there would be no special exception for Congress. Senate rules required us to accomplish this— McGovern: What Senate rules? Did you talk to the Senate parliamentarian? Who did…? MacArthur: I didn’t personally, but the requirement is because exempting us would require to go to a different committee that we needed to accomplish this through a stand-alone bill, which we have. Mrs. McSally has introduced it. I’m an original co-sponsor. I hope you’ll support the bill. I think it’s worthy of support, and none of us should want to exempt Congress— McGovern: None of us do, but from where we’re sitting, it looks like you guys get your hands caught in the cookie jar and then get exposed and then decided to fix it after a reporter uncovered it. MacArthur: Well, that’s your interpretation. I wouldn’t describe it that way. I think we fixed the issue in the only way that the Senate suggested that we could and that was through a stand-alone bill that was introduced around the same time. 28:56 Rep Jim McGovern: I think anybody who’s watching this is scratching their head, wondering how in the world can Congress be dealing with healthcare issues in a way where we don’t have hearings, where fixes are being worked out in a back room, and we’re just seeing the language for the first time right now, that their input is being pushed aside—American people don’t matter—all so that it could be a vote before we go in recess because the president wants us to. I mean, I think healthcare’s a very personal issue, it’s very important, and people want us to get it right, and I don’t think anybody here believes that we’re getting this right, even those of us with different opinions, in the process that we’re utilizing here. I’ve got to be honest with you, this process, to put it bluntly, is a goddamn mess. I mean, it really is. And I don’t know how anyone can defend it. Fixes upon fixes to fix the fixes to fix the fixes—and it’s going to be brought to the floor tomorrow, and we’re going to have a debate, and that’s how we’re going to serve our constituents? You guys can defend it, and you’ll have to defend it, but I think you’re going to be surprised how upset the American people are going to be. 37:30 Rep Fred Upton: My—our amendment, I should say, is carefully targeted at those states that may seek a waiver. Obviously, there are none today. I don’t know what Governor Scott or the future governor will do. Unknown Speaker: I’ll get to him in a minute. Upton: All right. Well, I know I talked to my governor this morning. He’s not interested in seeking a waiver. Unknown Speaker: Mm-hmm. Upton: I would guess that most governors—maybe all, I don’t know—will not seek a waiver, and in that case, my amendment just covers something if maybe it happens. And one of the reasons why we targeted the money—so it’s $8 billion: it’s a billion the first year; a billion the second year; and two billion, years, each, three, four, and five—because chances are if a governor does take this course, you’ll have fewer at the beginning than at the end. I ask the question, is five billion enough to cover those that might need some help if a governor sought a waiver in that first year, because remember, after the first year they have continuous coverage. Unknown Speaker: That's right. Upton: The answer, not a lot of facts behind it, but the answer was, five billion should probably cover that, in which case a number of us said, well, we want to make sure that it is covered. And that’s why it is eight billion and not five. 40:54 Rep Jim McGovern: Who did you ask? I mean, that’s the whole point of a CBO is because we want to get a nonpartisan— Rep Fred Upton: We don’t have a CBO score. McGovern: Right. So who? Who did you—who gave you these figures? Rep Alcee Hastings: Eight billion. Upton: Who? I'm sorry, who? McGovern: You said you asked— Upton: No, no. I know Mr. Hastings’ had an answer. I didn’t hear what he said. Hastings: No. You asked for the five billion, was that enough. Who? Upton: I asked, I asked— Hastings: And he asked who. Upton: I asked some of the drafters—so I made this proposal—I’m not a lawyer, like you—I asked legislative counsel, I asked a number of staff very tied into the—what is the estimate. They thought five billion would cover it. 51:25 Rep Alcee Hastings: And to predict for you what I think is going to happen in the Senate: I think they take health security a little more seriously and is a more moderate body than we are, and so you can reasonably expect that when you pass this tomorrow on the slimmest of margins that you may never see it again, and you will not see it in the form that it’s in. So let’s just have at it. I’ve had my fun. I hope you continue to have yours, and some of you ain’t going to be here the next time that we meet after 2018. Tell your body I said so. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD150: Pivot to North Korea

5 maj 2017 | 88 min

Congress is back from vacation and instead of focusing their investigative power on Syria in the wake of President Trump’s first bombing of the Syrian government, Congress focused on North Korea. In this episode, get the background information you will need to understand the daily developments related to North Korea and hear highlights from two Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and a U.N. Security Council meeting during which our plans for North Korea were laid on the table. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Jonathan Kaiman, The Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2017. Article: by Choe Sang-Hun, The New York Times, April 30, 2017. Article: by Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, April 30, 2017. Article: by Foster Klug and Kim Tong-Hyung, San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2017. Article: by Petra Cahill, NBC News, April 24, 2017. Article: by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr, Breaking Defense, March 2, 2017. Report: by Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2016. Article: by Sam Doo, Business Insider, April 20, 2015. Article: by Mark Bowden, Vanity Fair, March 2015. Article: by Garance Franke-Ruta, The Atlantic, August 31, 2013. Article: by Martin Jacques, The New York Times, September 23, 2011. Videos YouTube: Vice: Vice: Vice: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: YouTube: References Document: GovTrack: Lockheed Martin: Missile Defense Agency: OpenSecrets: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 25, 2017. Watch on Witnesses Dr. Victor D. Cha: Senior Advisor and Korea Chair, Center For Strategic and International Studies Dr. Aaron L. Friedberg: Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University Ms. Kelly E. Magsamen: Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Timestamps & Transcripts 18:52 Senator John McCain: America’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region are deep and enduring. That’s why, for the past 70 years, we’ve worked with our allies and partners to uphold a rules-based order based on principles of free peoples and free markets, open seas, and open skies, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These ideas have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. But now challenges to this rules-based order are mounting as a threat, not just the nations of the Asia-Pacific region but the United States as well. The most immediate challenge is the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Kim Jong-un’s regime has thrown its full weight behind its quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and, unfortunately, the regime is making real progress. A North Korean missile with a nuclear payload capable of striking an American city is no longer a distant hypothetical but an imminent danger, one that poses a real and rising risk of conflict. 31:20 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: The goal of Beijing’s strategy has become increasingly clear in the last few years is to create a regional Eurasian order that’s very different from the one we’d been trying to build since the end of the Cold War. 32:03 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: When the Cold War ended, the United States set out to expand the geographic scope of the Western liberal economic and institutional order by integrating the pieces of the former Soviet Union and the former Soviet empire and by accelerating the integration of China—the process that had begun a few years before. As regards China, the United States pursued a two-prong strategy: on one hand, seeking to engage China across all domains, economic in particular but diplomatic in others; and at the same time, working with our allies and partners and maintaining our own forces in the region to preserve a balance of power that was favorable to our interests and the security of our allies. And the goals of that policy were to preserve stability, to deter the possibility of aggression, while waiting for engagement to work its magic. The U.S. hoped, in effect, to tame and ultimately to transform China, to encourage its leaders to see their interests as lying in preservation of that order, and to set in motion processes that would lead, eventually, to the economic and political liberalization of that country. 37:53 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: Economically, they’ve been using the growing gravitational pull of their economy to draw others towards them and also to become increasingly open in using economic threats and punishments to try to shape the behavior of others in the region, including U.S. allies; as Dr. Cha mentioned, Korea; and also the Philippines. 42:27 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: And while there’s obviously a limit to what we can and should say in public, we are at a point, I think, where we need to be able to explain to our allies, our possible adversaries, and ourselves how we would fight and win a war in Asia, should that ever become necessary. 45:50 Kelly Magsamen: First, we need to increase the pressure on North Korea as a necessary predicate to any other option. China is central to that, but we can’t rely only on Chinese pressure. We also need to be realistic. Kim Jong-un is not going to unilaterally disarm because of international pressure. Pressure alone is not going to solve the problem. Second, military options should remain on the table, but they are extremely high risk and should be a last resort. We should not kid ourselves here: a conflict on the peninsula would be unlike anything we have seen in decades. North Korea is not a Syria, it’s not an Iraq; the consequences could be extremely high. 55:51 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: I think it would be very helpful for the administration to support your initiative, Senator McCain, with respect to the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative. In fact, urgent funding at levels that approximate those are for the European Reassurance Initiative. 56:32 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: In the near term, this will require shifting additional combat power to the theater, remedying shortfalls in critical munitions, expanding logistics’ capabilities, increasing joint exercises and training, and improving force resiliency by enabling a more dispersed deployment posture. But the longer term is just as crucial, and the demands of the longer term cannot be avoided indefinitely. Here, I believe, bipartisan support will be necessary for developing and rapidly integrating various revolutionary technologies into the joint force—technologies that will emphasize stealth, long-range, and unmanned capabilities as well as doubling down on our advantages in undersea warfare. 1:05:47 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: China’s been playing a game with us, for at least 15 years, on this issue. When we get especially concerned about what the North Koreans are doing, and we go to the Chinese and ask them for their help, what they’ve done in the past is to apply limited increments of pressure—they did it in 2003 to get the North Koreans to agree to sit down, what became six-party talks—but at the same time, almost simultaneously, as Victor suggests, they’re enabling the North Korean regime to continue by allowing continued economic exchange across their border. The Chinese have also allowed, or the Chinese authorities have at least looked aside as Chinese-based companies have exported to North Korea components that were essential to the development of their ballistic missiles, and probably other parts of their special-weapons programs. I’m not at all optimistic that the Chinese are going to play a different game with us now than they did in the past. One thing I would add, though: aside from military pressure, which for reasons that you suggest, Senator McCain, is I think of questionable plausibility, there are ways in which we could increase economic pressure on the North Korean regime, particularly by imposing further economic sanctions and especially financial sanctions. We did that in the Bush administration. I think it was actually something that caused a good deal of pain. We backed away from it for various reasons. I think it was a mistake to have done that. One of the reasons, my understanding, that we haven’t been willing to push on this harder is that it probably would involve sanctioning entities that are based in China, and I think we’ve been reluctant to do that because of our concerns about upsetting the relationship with China. I think if we’re going to be serious about this, we probably are going to have to go down that road. 1:08:37 Kelly Magsamen: Now is the time to try to make China understand that the status quo is worse for them than all other scenarios, and to do that, I think we need to hold their interests at risk, and what I mean by that is somewhat of what Dr. Friedberg said, which is we need to really think hard about secondary sanctions on Chinese banks. I actually think we should go out and do it now. I don’t think we should actually wait. I don’t think that holding it in advance is actually going to induce Chinese cooperation. So now is the time to demonstrate to China that we’re serious in that regard. 1:15:45 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: There is in the long run—I hesitate to use this term because it’s fallen into disfavor for good and bad reasons—but the ultimate solution to this problem is regime change unless and until there’s a change in the character of the North Korean regime and certainly the identity of the current leadership. There’s absolutely no prospect that I can see that this problem will get better. 1:26:05 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: We cannot do anything else without exhausting the alternatives offered by diplomacy because dealing with North Korea, at the end of the day, will require a coalition effort, and we have to satisfy the expectations of our coalition partners that we’ve made every effort in the interim to deal with the challenge. And so we have to think of it in terms of a multi-step game. As Dr. Cha highlighted, the immediate objective should be to get the North Korean regime back to the negotiating table. The ultimate objective must be to hope that there will be evolutionary change in the regime. 2:07:45 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: If you ask what would be the sort of outer limit of what China could do— Unknown Speaker: Mm-hmm. Friedberg: —assuming that it was willing to do almost anything, it could bring North Korean economy to its knees, which it’s pretty close to that already; it could cut off the flows of funds that go across the border into North Korea, partly from the so-called illicit activities that the North Koreans engage in; it could interdict components that flow into North Korea through China that support the special-weapons programs; it could do a lot. Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 27, 2017. Witness Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., USN: Commander, United States Pacific Command Timestamps & Transcripts 16:44 John McCain: America’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region are deep and enduring. That’s why, for the past 70 years, we’ve worked with our allies and partners to uphold a rules-based order based on the principles of free peoples and free markets, open seas, and open skies, and the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These ideas have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. But now challenges to this rules-based order are mounting, and they threaten not just the nations of the Asia-Pacific region but the United States as well. The most immediate threat is the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Kim Jong-un’s regime has thrown its full weight behind its quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and, unfortunately, the regime is making real progress. A North Korean missile with a nuclear payload capable of striking an American city is no longer a distant hypothetical but an imminent danger, one that poses a real and rising risk of conflict. 19:47 John McCain: As its behavior toward South Korea indicates over the last several years, China has acted less and less like a responsible stakeholder of the rules-based order in the region and more like a bully. It has economically coerced its neighbors, increased its provocations in the East China Sea, and militarized the South China Sea. Meanwhile, with a rebalance policy too heavy on rhetoric and too light on action, years of senseless defense cuts and now the disastrous decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, U.S. policy has failed to adapt to the scale and velocity of China’s challenge to the rules-based order. 21:44 John McCain: At our hearing earlier this week, our panel of expert witnesses agreed there was a strong merit for an “Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative.” This Initiative could enhance U.S. military power through targeted funding to realign our force posture in a region, improve operationally relevant infrastructure, fund additional exercises, pre-position equipment, and build capacity with our allies and partners. Admiral Harris, I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this kind of an initiative. 24:26 Senator Jack Reed: While North Korea poses an immediate national security threat, we must not lose sight of the potential long-term threat that China poses to the rules-based order in the Asia-Pacific region. Whether it be economic coercion of its small and more vulnerable neighbors or undermining the freedom of navigation that we all depend upon, China has not demonstrated a willingness to rise as a responsible global leader. Therefore, I believe it is critical that we empower and engage countries in Southeast Asia and South Asia to protect their own waterways and provide them with economical alternatives to maintain regional stability, preserve U.S. standing in Asia, and allow the economic growth and stability that has characterized the region for the last 50 years to continue. 35:41 John McCain: What does THAAD do for us? Admiral Harris: THAAD enables us and our South Korean allies to defend South Korea, or a big portion of South Korea, against the threat from North Korea. It is aimed at North Korea, the systems, and it poses no threat to China. McCain: But isn’t it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ, which could attack a city of 26 million people? Harris: It is, sir, and THAAD is not designed to counter those kinds of basic weapons. McCain: And what is designed to do that? Anything? Harris: We do not have those kinds of weapons that can counter those rockets once they’re launched. McCain: And they can launch—they have the capability of a launch of those rockets. Harris: At this very moment, they have that capability, Senator. 1:02:00 Senator Roger Wicker: There are these 4,000 short-range missiles, and your testimony is that there is essentially no defense from the south for those— Admiral Harris: Right. Wicker: —short-range missiles. Is that correct? Harris: And those aren’t missiles. Those are mostly artillery. Wicker: Artillery. Okay. Artillery. Harris: And so— Wicker: And there's no defense? Harris: Right. I mean, you’re trying to shoot down an artillery round, right. Wicker: Okay. And then, the chairman asked you, and I don’t think I understood the answer, what does THAAD get us? Harris: THAAD allows us an intercept capability to shoot down, at the high-altitude level, ballistic missiles that go from North Korea to South Korea. 1:57:37 Admiral Harris: What we said was, the Carl Vinson was leaving Singpore, truncating its exercise, cancelling is port visit, and heading to Northeast Asia. Unknown Speaker: But— Harris: And that’s where it is today. It’s within striking power, striking range of North Korea if the president were to call on it. 2:16:17 Senator Lindsay Graham: It should be the policy of the United States to never allow North Korea to develop an ICBM with a warhead that could hit America. Admiral Harris: I believe that’s correct. Graham: Okay. Do you believe that the only way they’ll change that policy, their desire, is if they believe that the regime could be taken down by us if they continue to develop an ICBM? Without credible military threat in the mind of the North Koreans they’re going to plow ahead? Harris: I believe that generally, but I believe that China might be able to exert its influence. Graham: Do you believe China could change North Korea’s behavior, absent a belief by North Korea, that we would use military force to stop their ICBM program? Harris: I do not. Graham: Okay. Do you believe that China would act stronger and more bold if they believe credible military force was on the table to stop North Korea? Harris: I do. Graham: So, it seems to me that the policy of the United States, given the admiral’s advice and you are really good at what you do, that we should all agree that it’s not good for America for North Korea to have an ICBM with a warhead attached, and it’s really not good for China, is it? Harris: I believe it is not good for China. Graham: Well, why don’t they believe that? Harris: Because they have their own calculus, their own decision process. Graham: Do you think they’re beginning to reshape their calculus in light of our reaction to North Korea? Harris: I hope so, but it’s early days. Graham: Okay. In terms of China’s leverage on North Korea, you said it was substantial. Harris: Their leverage is potentially substantial. Graham: Substantial. The best way to avoid a military conflict with North Korea over their missile program is for China to wake up North Korea to the reality of what threat that presents to North Korea and China. Is that fair to say? Harris: That is fair to say. Graham: Is it also fair to say that we do not have any intentions of invading North Korea at all? I mean, that’s not on our—nobody’s told you, “Get ready to invade North Korea.” Harris: That is not fair to say, sir. I believe the president has said that all options are on the table. Graham: Yeah, but, I mean, we’re not going to just go in and take North Korea down for the heck of it. Harris: Sir, I don’t want to get into what we could or could not do. Graham: Okay. Well, North Korea thinks we’re going to invade in any moment. Do you think that’s part of our national security strategy is, without provocation to attack North Korea? Harris: I think North Korea has provided provocation already in terms of— Graham: But without provocation, it’s not our policy to attack North Korea. Harris: They have provoked us already, sir. Graham: Yeah, I said but if they stopped it, they don’t have anything to worry about. Harris: Then we will have to look at it. You know, that’s a decision— Graham: That's all I'm saying. Harris: That’s a decision that the president would make. UN Security Council Meeting: , April 28, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 2:00 Antonio Guterres (UN Secretary General): The Security Council first adopted the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK, nuclear issue in 1993 when it urged the DPRK not to withdraw from the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Twenty-four years later and despite extensive efforts, the challenge has defied resolution. In response to the DPRK’s accelerated nuclear and ballistic missile activities, the Security Council has adopted two sanctions resolutions and met 11 times in emergency consultations since January 2016. During this period, the DPRK conducted two nuclear tests, more than 30 launches using ballistic missile technology, and various other activities relating to the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Its launches using ballistic-missile technology, have included tests of short, medium, intermediate range and submarine-launched ballistic missiles as well as the placement of a satellite in orbit. These tests and launches are clear violations of Security Council resolutions, and the absence of coordination and notifications in advance of these launches, other than the space launch of 7 February 2016, are also contrary to internationally accepted regulations and standards adopted by the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization. 11:30 Secretary Rex Tillerson: We have said this before, and it bears repeating: the policy of strategic patience is over. Additional patience will only mean acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. The more we bide our time, the sooner we will run out of it. 12:27 Secretary Rex Tillerson: Our goal is not regime change nor do we desire to threaten the North Korean people or destabilize the Asia-Pacific region. Over the years we have withdrawn our own nuclear weapons from South Korea and offered aid to North Korea as proof of our intent to de-escalate the situation and normalize relations. Since 1995 the United States has provided over $1.3 billion in aid to North Korea, and we look forward to resuming our contributions once the DPRK begins to dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile technology programs. 13:35 Secretary Rex Tillerson: I propose all nations take these three actions, beginning today: first, we call on UN member states to fully implement the commitments they have made regarding North Korea. This includes all measures required in resolutions 2321 and 2270. Those nations which have not fully enforced these resolutions fully discredit this body. Second, we call on countries to suspend or downgrade diplomatic relations with North Korea. North Korea exploits its diplomatic privileges to fund its illicit nuclear and missile technology programs, and constraining its diplomatic activity will cut off a flow of needed resources. In light of North Korea’s recent actions, normal relations with the DPRK are simply not acceptable. Third, we must increase North Korea’s financial isolation. We must levy new sanctions on DPRK entities and individuals supporting its weapons and missile programs, and tighten those that are already in place. The United States, also, would much prefer countries and people in question to own up to their lapses and correct their behavior themselves, but we will not hesitate to sanction third-country entities and individuals supporting the DPRK’s illegal activities. We must bring maximum economic pressure by severing trade relationships that directly fund the DPRK’s nuclear missile program. I call on the international community to suspend the flow of North Korean guest workers and to impose bans on North Korean imports, especially coal. We must all do our share, but China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is, therefore, particularly important. The U.S. and China have held very productive exchanges on this issue, and we look forward to further actions that build on what China has already done. Lastly, as we have said before, all options for responding to future provocation must remain on the table. Diplomatic and financial levers of power will be backed up by a willingness to counteract North Korean aggression, with military action if necessary. 36:02 Wang Yi (China's Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr. President, China is not the focal point of the problem on the peninsula. I think the key to solving the nuclear issue on the peninsula does not lie in the hands of the Chinese. 37:05 Wang Yi: The dual-track approach aims to promote parallel progress in the denuclearization of the peninsula and the establishment of a peace mechanism on the peninsula in a synchronized and reciprocal manner, ultimately achieving both goals together. The suspension-for-suspension proposal, which calls for the suspension of nuclear and missile activities by the DPRK and the suspension of large-scale military exercises by the U.S. and the ROK, seeks to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table, thus initiating the first step of the dual-track approach. 40:25 Wang Yi: Given the grave situation on the peninsula, China strongly urges all parties to remain calm and exercise restraint and avoid provocative rhetoric or actions that will lead to miscalculation. What I want to stress is that there is and should be no double standard on this issue. While we demand the DPRK to observe the Council’s resolutions and stop advancing its nuclear and missile development, we also demand the U.S., the ROK, and other parties to refrain from conducting or even expanding military exercises and deployment against the DPRK. 41:06 Wang Yi: All parties should comprehensively appreciate and fully implement DPRK related Security Council’s resolutions, in addition to introducing sanctions on the DPRK, the resolutions adopted do date also ask for resumption of the six-party talks, avoidance of acceleration of tensions, not to mention [unclear], in other words, imposing sanctions [unclear] talks about the [unclear] Council resolutions. We may not choose one over the other. We’ll only implement what we see fit. 42:30 Wang Yi: Before I conclude, I want to reiterate China’s firm opposition against a U.S. deployment of THAAD anti-missile system in the ROK. It’s a move that seriously undermines the strategic security of China and other countries in the region and damages the trust and the cooperation amongst the parties on the peninsula issue. It is detrimental to achieving denuclearization and maintaining long-term stability on the peninsula. China was again urges [unclear] parties to immediately stop the deployment process. 2:03:05 Secretary Rex Tillerson: We will not negotiate our way back to the negotiating table with North Korea. We will not reward their violations of past resolutions. We will not reward their bad behavior with talks. We will only engage in talks with North Korea when they exhibit a good-faith commitment to abiding by the Security Council resolutions and their past promises to end their nuclear programs. Cover Art Design by

CD149: Fossil Fuel Foxes

24 april 2017 | 152 min

Exxon Mobil’s CEO is now the Secretary of State. The Koch Brothers’ Congressman is the CIA Director. We’ve already seen signs that the Trump Administration and the fossil fuel industry are merging. In this episode, hear the highlights of the confirmation hearings of the two men now most responsible for environmental law enforcement in the United States: Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt. Will they protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry or did President Trump appoint foxes to guard the henhouse? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Samantha Page, Think Progress, April 19, 2017. Article: by Sam Levin, The Guardian, April 17, 2017. News Release: , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 13, 2017. Op-Ed: by Jack Lienke, Grist, April 12, 2017. Article: by Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times, April 10, 2017. Article: by Richard Nemec, Natural Gas Intel, April 6, 2017. Article: by Eric Lipton, The New York Times, March 29, 2017. Article: by Bryan Schott, UtahPolicy.com, March 27, 2017. Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Interior, March 16, 2017. Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Interior, March 15, 2017. Article: by Rob Chaney, Missoulian, March 10, 2017. Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Interior, March 6, 2017. Article: by Thomas Burr, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 1, 2017. Article: by Rong-Gong Lin II, The Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2017. Article: by Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, February 22, 2017. Article: by Natasha Geiling, Think Progress, February 19, 2017. Article: by Kirk Siegler, NPR, February 5, 2017. Article: by Heather Brown, CBS Minnesota, January 24, 2017. Document: by The American Lung Association Article: by Merrit Kennedy, NPR, December 20, 2016. Article: by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, The New Yorker, December 16, 2016. Press Release: , U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2016. Article: by Holly Michels, Montana Standard, October 14, 2016. Article: by Joby Warrick and Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, January 15, 2016. Article: by Daniel J. Weiss and Miranda Peterson, Center for American Progress, February 10, 2014. References Encyclopedia Britannica: Fact Sheet: , US Department of the Interior U.S. Energy Information Administration: U.S. Energy Information Administration: Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Protection Agency: GovTrack: GovTrack: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Interior Secretary Confirmation - Ryan Zinke, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, January 17, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 42:54 Senator Lisa Murkowski: Will you commit to a formal review of all of the Obama administration’s actions that took resource-bearing lands and waters in Alaska effectively off the table, including the decisions that specifically prevented the leasing of those lands and those waters for development, and determine whether or not they can be reversed? Ryan Zinke: Yes. I think the president-elect has said that we want to be energy independent. As a former Navy Seal, I think I’ve been to 63 countries in my lifetime, and I can guarantee it is better to produce energy domestically under [missing audio] than watch it be produced overseas with no regulation. I’ve seen the consequences of what happens when you don’t have any regulation in the Middle East. We can do it right. The backbone of our environmental policies has been NEPA, and I’m a strong supporter of NEPA, but we also have to understand that we need an economy. And, look, if we don’t have an economy as a country, then the rest of it doesn’t matter, because we’re not going to be able to afford a strong military, nor are we going to be able to afford to keep the promises we’ve made as a great nation; and we’ve made a lot of promises to education, to our children’s future, to infrastructure, to Social Security; all that takes an economy that’s moving forward, and energy is a part of that economy, and Alaska is a critical part of that economy. Alaska’s different for a reason: you are blessed with great resources, you are blessed with great recreation—a little cold in the winter, but it’s not Palm Springs. Murkowski: You’re from Montana. You can handle it. Zinke: We can handle it. But, yes, I think we need to be prudent. And always, I think we need to review things to make sure we’re doing it right because over time the government keeps on getting bigger and bigger, the bureaucracy gets larger and larger, and we can’t get something done. 53:12 Senator John Hoeven: Also in North Dakota, we’ve had a real challenge with the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. You and I talked about it. State and local law enforcement has worked very hard to keep the peace and to keep people safe, but we need federal law-enforcement help as well, and so in your case, that’s going mean BIA law enforcement. And, so, my question is, if you’re confirmed, will you ensure that BIA law enforcement works with state and local law enforcement to resolve the situation, to keep people safe, and to make sure that the rule of law is followed? Ryan Zinke: Yes, sir. And we talked about it in your office, and if confirmed, I’m going to be a very busy man, travelling. I’m going to travel to Utah, travel to Alaska, and travel to North Dakota. Those are three impending problems that we need to resolve quickly. I have great respect for the Indian nations. I’m adopted Assiniboine. Last time the Sioux Nations all got together, I would say General Custer probably would say that was not a good issue. So, you look at this, and there is deep cultural ties, there is a feeling that we haven’t been a fair consultant, a fair partner, and so I think we need to listen to that voice. 57:45 Senator Bernie Sanders: President-elect Trump has suggested—more than suggested—stated in his view that climate change is a “hoax.” Now I know that you’re not here to be administrator of the EPA or secretary of the Energy, but the issue of climate change is in fact very important for issues that the Department of Interior deals with. Is President-elect Trump right? Is climate change a hoax? Ryan Zinke: I can give you—the best answer is three things: First of all, climate is changing. That’s indisputable. I’m from Glacier National Park, and I’ve seen— Sanders: You don’t have any more glaciers there, huh? Zinke: Well—and I’ve seen glaciers over the period of my time recede. Matter of fact, when my family and I have eaten lunch on Grinnell Glacier, the glacier has receded during lunch. Sanders: All right. But I have—if you could— Zinke: Yeah. Sanders: —is the president-elect right? Is climate change a hoax? Zinke: Well, if I can give you two more points— Sanders: Okay. Zinke: —I’ll make it short. The second thing is man has had an influence. I don’t think—I think that’s indisputable as well. So, climate is changing, man is an influence. I think where there’s debate on it is what that influence is, what can we do about it, and as the Department of Interior, I will inherit, if confirmed, the USGS. We have great scientists there. I’m not a climate-scientist expert, but I can tell you I will become a lot more familiar with it, and it’ll be based on objective science. I don’t believe it’s a hoax; I believe we should— Sanders: You do not believe it's a hoax. Zinke: No. I believe we should be prudent to be prudent. That means I don’t know definitively; there’s a lot of debate on both sides of the aisle— Sanders: Well, actually, there’s not a whole lot of debate now. The scientific community is virtually unanimous that climate change is real and causing devastating problems. There is the debate on this committee but not within the scientific community. 59:40 Senator Bernie Sanders: If climate change is already causing devastating problems, should we allow fossil fuel to be drilled on public lands? Ryan Zinke: Again, we need an economy and jobs, too. And I, in my experience, have probably seen 63 different countries. I’ve seen what happens when you don’t have regulated— Sanders: I’m taking your—I don’t mean to be rude, but this is not a whole lot—I’m taking your answer to be yes, we should allow fossil fuel to be drilled on public lands. Zinke: I’m an all-the-above energy, and I want to be honest with you—I’m all the above. Sanders: Will you encourage wind and solar on public lands? Zinke: I will encourage, absolutely, wind and sol—all the above. Sanders: Okay. Zinke: So I think that’s the better solution going forward is all-the-above energy. 1:00:40 Ryan Zinke: I want to be clear in this point: I am absolutely against transfer or sale of public land. 1:39:40 Senator John Barrasso: The war on coal: it is real for communities across the West, including Wyoming, including Montana; it’s devastated small towns, ultimately threatens our country’s energy security. If confirmed, will you commit to ending this moratorium on federal coal leasing? Ryan Zinke: The war on coal, I believe, is real. I have Decker, Montana, in my area, and behind me is a gentleman that works in the coal mines of the Crow Agency, which, by the way, the Crow Agency, if you were to take coal out of the picture, the unemployment rate would probably in the 90 percent. So they’re very keen on making sure they have their jobs and we give them the ability for self-determination. The moratorium, I think, was an example of many, is that one size fits all. It was a view from Washington and not a view from the states, particularly if you’re a state such as Wyoming, parts of Montana, West Virginia, where coal’s important. So overall, the president-elect has made a commitment to end “ the war on coal.” I think we should be smart on how we approach our energy. “All the above” is a correct policy. Coal is certainly a great part of our energy mix. To your point, I’m also a great believer that we should invest in the research and development, particularly on coal, because we know we have the asset. Let’s work together to make it cleaner, better. We should be leading the world in clean-energy technology, and I’m pretty confident that coal can be a part of that. 1:41:36 Senator John Barrasso: With the use of the Congressional Review Act, and I’m planning introducing a disapproval resolution on the BLM’s venting and flaring rule. To me that rule far exceeds the authority of the BLM, will ultimately put federal lands at a greater competitive disadvantage to state and private lands. Will you support our efforts to reverse this rule under the Congressional Review Act? Ryan Zinke: Yes, and I think what the driving force is is we’re venting a lot, and we’re wasting energy. And that is troubling to me, is that the amount of venting in North Dakota alone almost exceeds what we get out of the fields. So, a lot of the wasting can be approached by having an infrastructure. So let us build a system where we capture that energy that is otherwise being wasted. And that’s an enormous opportunity. It’s an enormous opportunity, our natural gas and geopolitically as well. We haven’t talked a lot about overseas, but energy is so critically important. If we want to check Russia, then let’s do it with liquid natural gas. If we want to put pressure on Iran, then let’s supplant every drop of Iranian crude. This is all part of a larger package, and it cannot be done without the great state of Wyoming and their assets, or Alaska. But we have to think globally on it, and it is better—and I’ve said this once before—but it is better to produce energy in America under reasonable regulation and get better over time than watch it be produced overseas with no regulation. That is indisputable. 1:43:23 Senator John Barrasso: And I want to talk about sage grouse management plans. The administration has ignored input from key stakeholders, including Western governors during the development of their plans, plans which were used to justify [missing audio] unwarranted status under the Endangered Species Act. But at the core, the plans fundamentally oppose the multiple-use mandates of the BLM, which includes grazing, recreation, energy development. Will you commit to returning conservation and management authority of the sage grouse back to the states in preventing this top-down mandate like this in the future? Ryan Zinke: My understanding is the sage grouse decision is going to come before the Department of Interior some time in March. I understand there’s going to be options and alternatives, proposed alternatives. I will work with you when I see those documents, and I’ll work with all of you when I see those documents, to make sure we’re doing the right thing. What concerns me about sage grouse is there’s no target number. I’m not sure how you can manage without a number. If we just grab a management of property without a number, I look at that with a suspect eye. So I think we’ve got to look at, everyone loves sage grouse, everyone understands that we have to protect the species, and generally those living in the ground are in a better position, and we should be an advocate and a partner in this rather than heavy-handed and just dictate terms, particularly when we don’t have a number. 2:33:40 Senator Mazie Hirono: In the discussion about energy, you’ve said a number of times that you support “all of the above,” which sounds really great except that in “all of the above,” what’s happened is that the fossil-fuel side of energy has gotten a lot of support over decades. So I hope that when you say “all of the above” that you will also be committed to providing more resources and support, particularly R&D for alternative and renewables, aside from, or in addition to, fossil fuels. So we need to have a more-level playing field for policies that truly reflect support for “all of the above.” Ryan Zinke: Yeah. I’ve always been a strong proponent on the record for research and development of different technologies, different innovations, different opportunities in this complete spectrum of the energy to include looking at traditional sources to make sure we’re better at doing that, you know, certainly horizontal drilling, fracking— Hirono: Yeah. Zinke: —coal. But “all the above” I think is the right approach. And when it comes out of the test tube and into fielding, energy needs to be affordable, reliable, and abundant. Part 2 12:15 Ryan Zinke: On the Gateway Pacific Terminal, what I raised my eyebrow on is I didn’t take a position, whether yes or no, on the Terminal. I took a position to make sure the NEPA process was followed and the EIS was completed before making a judgment. What I found was we were close to ending the NEPA process, with the EIS, after years and millions of dollars were spent on it, and then that was truncated and stopped by affidavits—and I didn’t judge whether the affidavits from the tribe were true or not true—if you don’t finish the NEPA process and don’t finish an EIS, and then all of a sudden that process can be interrupted and a permit can be pulled on the basis of something outside the EIS, why would you ever consent to spend millions of dollars on an EIS? That was my objection. And I don’t mean to speak for Senator Daines. Senator Maria Cantwell: So, you believe in the tribal sovereignty of the Lummi tribe to object in this case. Zinke: They certainly had every right to object as well as, in this case, the Crows, who also have a treaty obligation. 15:06 Senator Steve Daines: You have been a champion fighting on behalf of the Crow tribes, as you mentioned here in that last exchange, their sovereign right to develop their coal resources. And as you said in your testimony, the unemployment rate in Crow country will go north of 90 percent if they lose those jobs. Hearing: EPA Administrator Confirmation - Scott Pruitt, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, January 18, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 01:30 Chairman John Barrasso: Good morning. I call this hearing to order. We have a quite a full house today. I welcome the audience. This is a formal Senate hearing, and in order to allow the committee to conduct its business, we’ll maintain decorum. That means if there are disorders, demonstrations, by a member of the audience, the person causing the disruption will be escorted from the room by the Capitol Police. 22:50: Senator Jim Inhofe: Yes, as attorney general, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the oil companies, and the out-going administration on many fronts, but all of these suits were brought to protect state and local interests from overzealous and activist executive agencies. Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has advanced a radical environmental agenda, has exhibited a deep distrust of state governments and private land owners, and has worked to obstruct the fossil-fuel industry and agriculture producers, the most-ardent protectors of the environment. 29:52 Scott Pruitt: I would lead the EPA with the following principles in mind: First, we must reject as a nation that false paradigm that if you’re pro-energy, you’re anti-environment; and if you’re pro-environment, you’re anti-energy. I really reject that narrative. In this nation we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God has blessed us with, while also being good stewards of the air, land, and water by which we’ve been favored. It is not an either-or proposition. Next, we should celebrate the great progress we’ve made as a nation since the inception of the EPA and the laws that have been passed by this body, but recognize that we have much work to do. Third, rule of law matters. Process matters. It inspires confidence in those that are regulated. The law is static, not transient. Regulators are supposed to make things regular, to fairly and equitably enforce the rules and not pick winners and losers. A regulator should not be for or against any sector of our economy; instead, a regulator ought to follow the law in setting up the rules so that those who are regulated can plan, allocate resources, to meet the standards versus operating in a state of uncertainty and duress. Fourth, federalism matters. It matters because Congress says so. And because we need to achieve good outcomes as a nation for air and water quality, we need the partnership of the states to achieve that. It is our state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges, plus our state regulators possess the resources and expertise to enforce our environmental laws. Fifth, public participation is key. We need to hear all voices as we make decisions in behalf of our country with respect to environmental laws. 39:07 Senator Tom Carper: In 2011 the EPA required dirty coal power plants to clean up mercury and air toxic emissions by issuing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule. This rule will reduce the mercury, a neurotoxin that contaminates our streams and our oceans, pollutes our fish, and harms our children’s health. As attorney general, I believe you’ve been part of at least 14 legal cases against the EPA, and at least three of these cases against the EPA’s rules, to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Is that correct? Just yes or no. Scott Pruitt: Senator, we have been involved in litigation around the MATS rule. Carper: Is that correct? Yes or no. Pruitt: As I indicated, yes, we’ve been a part of litigation involving the MATS rule. Carper: Thank you. It’s my understanding that at least one of these cases against the mercury rule is still pending. Is that correct? Just yes or no. Pruitt: I believe so, Senator, yes. Carper: Thank you. 43:40 Senator Jim Inhofe: I’m glad you brought up this thing about the Clean Air Act. The amendments from 1990, I was one of the cosponsors, it’s been incredibly successful. I mean, you mentioned that we’ve reduced those pollutants by 63 percent, but what you didn’t add was that it is in spite of the fact that we had 153 percent increase in our economic activity. That’s a major thing. 48:52 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: In Rhode Island, we have bad air days, and because of EPA’s work, there are fewer and fewer. A bad air day is a day when people driving into work hear on the radio that ozone from out-of-state smokestacks has made the air in Rhode Island dangerous and that infants and the elderly and people with breathing difficulties should stay home on an otherwise beautiful day. Because those smokestacks are out of state, we need EPA to protect us, and I see nothing in your record that would give a mom taking her child to the hospital for an asthma attack any comfort that you would take the slightest interest in her. And your passion for devolving power down to states doesn’t help us, because our state regulators can’t do anything about any of those problems; they all come from out-of-state sources. 49:45 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: One of the things I’d like to ask you about here is the connection between you and some of these fossil-fuel companies. These are some of the companies that have supported you. These are some of the political organizations that you’ve raised money for. You’ve raised money for them for Pruitt for Attorney General, correct? Scott Pruitt: Yes, sir. I have a campaign committee for that, yes. Whitehouse: And Devon Energy, Koch Industries, ExxonMobil have all maxed out to that account. Pruitt: I’m not aware— Whitehouse: At various times. Pruitt: —if they maxed out or not, Senator, but I’m sure they’ve given to that committee. Whitehouse: Oklahoma Strong PAC is your leadership PAC? Pruitt: It was, yes. Whitehouse: It was? And, similarly, they gave money, they maxed out to that organization as well, which you controlled? Pruitt: I’m unsure about that, Senator. Whitehouse: Okay. But they contributed to it. Pruitt: I’m even unsure about that as well. I haven’t looked at that. Whitehouse: You closed your super PAC, Liberty 2.0, but that took fossil-fuel contributions as well, correct? Pruitt: That particular entity has been closed, yes. Whitehouse: Now, you helped raise money for the Republican Attorney General’s Association. While you were a member of its executive committee, they received $530,000 from Koch Industries, $350,000 from Murray Energy, $160,000 from ExxonMobil, and $125,000 from Devon Energy, the company whose letter you transposed onto your letterhead and sent as an Oklahoma attorney general document. 1:11:57 Senator Jeff Merkley: Over a number of years, information started pouring into EPA that the estimate of the amount of fugitive methane escaping in gas and oil drilling had been deeply underestimated. In 2011 the EPA put out its best estimates based on the information that was being presented. And this is relevant because methane is a global-warming gas, more potent than CO2. Gas companies didn’t like this because, well, it presented a vision of natural gas being more damaging environmentally than folks had previously understood. Devon Energy is one of the groups that sought to cast doubt on this scientific information, and it came to you to be their spokesperson, and they asked, will you be our mouthpiece in casting doubt and send a letter we have drafted to the EPA, and you sent that letter. And I just want to ask, first, are you aware that methane is approximately 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global-warming gas? Scott Pruitt: I am, Senator. It’s— Merkley: Thank you. Pruitt: —the impact on human health— Merkley: That’s the answer. Yes. Thank you. It’s a yes-no question. And on a one to 10 scale, how concerned are you about the impacts of fugitive methane in driving global warming? Pruitt: Methane, as you indicated, has— Merkley: One to 10 scale. Highly, 10, very concerned; or one, not so concerned? Pruitt: The quantities of methane in the atmosphere compared to CO2 is less, but it’s far more potent, and it is— Merkley: Are you concerned? I’m asking about your level of concern. Pruitt: Yes, yes. Merkley: Highly concerned? Pruitt: I'm concerned. Merkley: Thank you. 1:13:34 Senator Jeff Merkley: Do you acknowledge sending this letter to the EPA in October 2011? Pruitt: Senator, that is a letter that’s on my letterhead that was sent to the EPA, yes, with respect to the issue. Merkley: You acknowledge that 97 percent of the words in that letter came directly from Devon Energy? Pruitt: I have not looked at the percentages, Senator. Merkley: The statement that’s been analyzed many times is that all of the 1,016 words, except for 37 words, were written directly by Devon Energy. Pruitt: Senator, that was a step that was taken as attorney general representing the interest of our state. Over 25 percent of our— Merkley: Yeah, so, I didn’t ask that question. I was just asking if you copied the letter virtually word for word. You have acknowledged that, yes, it’s in the record, people can count it, is correct. All right, so, a public office is about serving the public. There is a public concern over the impact of methane on global warming. There is scientific research showing that it’s far more devastating than anticipated and far more is leaking than—but you used your office as a direct extension of an oil company rather than a direct extension of the interests of the public health of the people of Oklahoma. Do you acknowledge that you presented a private oil company’s position rather than a position developed by the people of Oklahoma? Pruitt: Senator, with respect, I disagree. The efforts that I took as attorney general were representing the interests of the state of Oklahoma. Merkley: Earlier you said you— Pruitt: And there was a concern about— Merkley: No, no, excuse me. I’m asking the questions. You said earlier you listen to everyone. In drafting this letter, you took an oil company’s position, and then, without consulting people who had diverse views about the impact, you sent it off. How can you present that as representing the people of Oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view for its private profit? Pruitt: Senator, there’s an obligation the EPA has to follow processes as established by this body. The cost-benefit analysis under Section 112 is something that they have to engage in. There was a concern about the overestimated percentages that the EPA put in the record—it was a record-based challenge—that was the expression of the letter to the EPA, and it was representing the interests of an industry in the state of Oklahoma— Merkley: Thank you. Pruitt: —not a company, an industry. Merkley: So, my question was, what other groups—environmental groups or other groups—did you consult so that you had that full perspective before representing simply a for-profit oil company using your official office and your official letterhead? Pruitt: There—I consulted with other environmental officials in Oklahoma that regulate that industry and learned from them with respect to the concerns about the estimates that were provided by the EPA. Merkley: Can you provide this committee with information showing who you consulted in representing this letter specifically for Devon Energy, because the information that’s in the public realm only shows that they simply sent you a letter, asked you to send it, and you sent it without questions. Pruitt: We have seven or so individuals in our office that are involved in these kinds of issues, and we will collect the information they have and provide it to this body pursuant to the chairman’s direction. Merkley: Your staff expanded substantially while you were in charge, to 251 staff members. Why do you need an outside oil company to draft a letter when you have 250 people working for you? Pruitt: Senator, as I’ve indicated, that was an effort that was protecting the state’s interest in making sure that we made the voices of all Oklahomans heard on a very important industry to our state. Merkley: You said that all heard, but you only sent it on behalf of a single voice: the oil company. Pruitt: That— Merkley: Thank you. 1:24:11 Senator Cory Booker: You’ve joined or filed 14 lawsuits against the EPA, challenging clean air and clean-water rules, yes? Scott Pruitt: We’ve been involved in multiple pieces of litigation, Senator. Booker: Yeah, but I’m looking at specifically 14, and, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to put those 14 lawsuits into the record, of where you specifically challenged the EPA on air quality. And let me just go through some of those. Chairman Barrasso: Without objection. Booker: Thank you, sir. To refresh your recollection, you filed two lawsuits challenging the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone; you filed four lawsuits challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan; you have sued to challenge the EPA’s 111(b) standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants; and you also sued to challenge the EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan for Oklahoma under the Regional Haze rule. You’re familiar with those, I imagine. Pruitt: Yes, Senator. Booker: And you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, something in New Jersey we’re very concerned with. And are you aware that that Rule, which you lost in that suit, scientists estimate that that alone prevents 400,000 asthma attacks nationally each year? Are you aware or those estimations? Pruitt: Yes, Your Honor. Or, yes, Senator. May I offer— Booker: I appreciate your promotion to judge. Let me continue, Mr. Pruitt. I don’t have that much time. Pruitt: Okay. Booker: So, each of these lawsuits that I just went through and that we analyzed, all of them challenge attempts by the EPA to reduce air pollution. In all of them except one you filed those lawsuits, joining with polluting companies that were also suing the EPA. And, so, in addition to filing those lawsuits with some of the polluting companies, or at least one that has now been specifically mentioned by two of my colleagues, you used substantial portions of the letters from those companies, put them on your official attorney general letterhead; and what was sort of surprising to me is that when you’ve been asked about this in the public, you basically represented that, “That’s actually called representative government in my view of the world.” Your testimony here says that you were representing industry; you were representing the polluters. And, so, with all of these lawsuits you filed, and with all of these letters like this one written to the EPA, on behalf of the industries that are causing the pollution, it seems clear to me that obviously the fact pattern on representing polluters is clear, that you worked very hard on behalf of these industries that have their profits externalized, negative externalities are their pollution. And, so, I just have a question for you specifically about the children of Oklahoma. Do you know how many kids in Oklahoma, roughly, have asthma? Pruitt: I do not, Senator. Booker: Well, according to the data published by the very non-partisan group, the American Lung Association, more than 111,000 children in Oklahoma, which is more than 10 percent, more than one in 10 of all the kids in Oklahoma, have asthma. That’s one of the highest asthma rates in the entire United States of America. Now, this is a crisis—similar data, for where I was mayor—and I can tell you firsthand the devastating impacts that asthma has on children and families: affecting their economic well-being; parents who have to watch their children struggle to breathe; people that have to miss work, rushing their kids to the hospital. One in 10 kids having a disease, missing school, is a significant problem. And so if you’ve been writing letters on behalf of polluting industries, I want to ask you, how many letters did you write to the EPA about this health crisis? If this is representative government, did you represent those children? I want to know what actions you’ve taken in the past six years in your capacity as protector of the welfare of Oklahoma citizens to protect the welfare of those 111,000 children. Did you ever let any of them write letters on your letterhead to the EPA, and did you even file one lawsuit—one lawsuit—on behalf of those kids to reduce the air pollution in your state and help them to have a healthy life? Pruitt: Senator, I’ve actually provided a list of cases to the chairman with respect to enforcement steps we’ve taken in multiple pieces of environmental litigation, but let me say to you, with respect to Cross-State Air Pollution and some of the cases you referred to, the state has to have an interest before it can bring those cases, as you know. You can’t just bring a lawsuit if you don’t have standing, if there’s not been some injury to the state of Oklahoma. In each of those cases, the court determined that there was a state interest— Booker: My time has expired, but if I could just say, injury, clearly asthma is triggered and caused by air pollutants. Clearly there is an air pollution problem, and the fact that you have not brought suits in any of the levels which you’ve represented the industries that are causing the pollution is really problematic when you’re going to sit in a position that is nationally supposed to be affecting this reality. And asthma in our country is the number one reason why children in America, health reason, why children in America miss school. 1:37:28 Senator Ed Markey: Eight of those cases are still ongoing, including your litigation that challenges critical rules that reduce levels of hazardous smog, mercury, and carbon pollution. As EPA administrator, you would be in a position to serve as plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on these ongoing eight lawsuits, and that would be wrong. In your ethics agreement, you have said that you would not participate in any matter that is ongoing litigation within one year, but, Mr. Pruitt, isn’t it correct that these lawsuits may very well continue for much longer than one year? Scott Pruitt: Well, Senator, I have the letter from the ethics counsel at the EPA, and the one-year time period is intended to address covered entities, entities that I served in a chairmanship or an officer capacity. The Southern Theological Seminary, the Windows Ministry, those entities are covered entities. So if there is a matter that arises before the EPA within a one-year period, a particular matter, a specific case that involves those entities, then the recusal would be in order. But that’s really the focus of the one-year timeline. Markey: So, will you agree to recuse yourself from those lawsuits which you brought as the attorney general of Oklahoma against the EPA, not just for one year, but for the entirety of the time that you are the administrator of the EPA? Will you commit to doing that? Pruitt: Senator, for clarity, I think that it’s important to note that the one-year time period, again, is for those covered entities that were highlighted in the EPA letter. With respect to pending litigation, the EPA ethics counsel has indicated, with respect to particular matters and specific parties, there will be an opportunity to get counsel from the EPA at that point to determine what steps could be taken to avoid appearances of impropriety. Markey: So, you will not recu—are you saying that you will not recuse yourself from the actual matters which you’re suing the EPA on right now as attorney general of Oklahoma for the time that you are the head of the EPA? Pruitt: I’m not saying that at all, Senator. Markey: You are saying that. Will you recuse yourself? Pruitt: I’m saying that the EPA ethics counsel has indicated those cases will require a review by the EPA ethics counsel, and if it involves a particular matter with a specific party, then recusal would potentially be in order, and I would follow the guidance and counsel of EPA ethics. Markey: I just think this is—this is a clear line for the American public, given your record from Oklahoma in suing the EPA on all of these matters, that if you don’t agree to recuse yourself, then, again, you become plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on the cases that you’re bringing right now as attorney general of Oklahoma against the EPA; and the EPA is for all of the people of the United States, not just the fossil-fuel industry of Oklahoma. So you’re not committing—and I think that’s a big mistake, Mr. Pruitt—to recuse yourself from those cases. It is critical. 2:19:49 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: I’ve looked at your record. Most of the lawsuits you filed as attorney general were related to businesses, specifically what was important for your state in terms of employers and businesses, and the few lawsuits you did file about human safety were few and far between, but this role as head of the EPA, you’re going to have a much more important role to play. And I want to talk specifically about mercury. If you believe that mercury is a threat to public health but oppose the remedy of reducing mercury air pollution from power plants because it’s too costly, what, then, do you think you should do or what should be done to address the mercury pollution? Scott Pruitt: Let me say, Senator, mercury is something—it is a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112. It is something that the EPA has authority to regulate and should regulate. It should do so, though, within the framework established by this body, and the Supreme Court said that the EPA did not follow the cost-benefit obligations. It’s not that the benefits outweigh the costs, it’s just that they simply didn’t engage in a proper record-based support for their rule. And so that goes back to earlier questions with other senators about the process mattering, being committed to the rule of law and the rulemaking authority that Congress has given the EPA in making sure that as rules are passed, that they can be upheld in court. Gillibrand: But, I need you also to be worried about human health. I understand there’s a cost, but when you’re talking about lives, when you’re talking about children who can’t breathe—I’ve been to the emergency room at two in the morning with a child who can’t breathe; it’s a horrible thing. We’ve had children die in New York City because none of their teachers, no administrators in the schools knew what to do when a child has an asthma attack. It’s a huge problem. So I need you to care about human health and really believe that the cost, when human health is at risk, when people are dying, is far higher than it is the cost to that polluter to clean up the air and change their processes. I need you to feel it as if your children sitting behind you are the ones in the emergency room. I need you to know it. 2:31:32 Senator Bernie Sanders: And I apologize for being late, but we were at a hearing with Congressman Price, who is the nominee for HHS, and perhaps not a great idea to have important nominating hearings at exactly the same time. 2:33:30 Scott Pruitt: I believe the ability to measure with precision the degree of human activity’s impact on the climate is subject to more debate on whether the climate is changing or the human activity contributes to it. Senator Bernie Sanders: While you are not certain, the vast majority of scientists are telling us that if we do not get our act together and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, there is a real question as to the quality of the planet that we are going to be leaving our children and our grandchildren. So, you are applying for a job as administrator for the EPA to protect our environment; overwhelming majority of scientists say we have got to act boldly, and you are telling me that there needs to be more debate on this issue and that we should not be acting boldly. Pruitt: No, Senator. As I’ve indicated, the climate is changing, and human activity impacts that. Sanders: But you haven’t told me why you think the climate is changing. Pruitt: Well, Senator, the job of the administrator is to carry out the statutes as passed by this body and to _ Sanders: Why is the climate changing? Pruitt: Senator, in response to the CO2 issue, the EPA administrator is constrained by statutes Sanders: I'm asking you a personal opinion. Pruitt: My personal opinion is immaterial— Sanders: Really?! Pruitt: —to the job of carrying out— Sanders: You are going to be the head of the agency to protect the environment, and your personal feelings about whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions is immaterial? Pruitt: Senator, I’ve acknowledged to you that the human activity impacts the climate. Sanders: Impacts. Pruitt: Yes. Sanders: Scientific community doesn’t tell us it impacts; they say it is the cause of climate change, we have to transform our energy system. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system in order to protect the planet for future generations? Pruitt: I believe the EPA has a very important role at regulating the emissions of CO2. Sanders: You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, to do what the scientific community is telling us, in order to make sure that this planet is healthy for our children and grandchildren? Pruitt: Senator, I believe that the administrator has a very important role to perform in regulating CO2. Sanders: Can you tell me, as I think all of us know, Oklahoma has been subjected to a record-breaking number of earthquakes. Scientists say that Oklahoma is almost certain to have more earthquakes, with heightened risk of a large quake, probable to endure for a decade and that the cause of this is fracking. Can you point me—picking up on Senator Harris’s discussion with you, can you point me to any opinion that you wrote, any enforcement actions you took, against the companies that were injecting waste fracking water? Pruitt: Senator, let me say I’m very concerned about the connection between activity in Oklahoma and- Sanders: And, therefore, you must have taken action, I guess. Can you tell me who you fined for doing this, if you are very concerned? Pruitt: The Corporation Commission in Oklahoma is vested with the jurisdiction, and they have actually acted on that. Sanders: And you have made public statements expressing your deep concern about this. Pruitt: We have worked with, through our- Sanders: You have made public statements. You’re in a state which is seeing a record-breaking number of earthquakes. You’re the attorney general. Obviously, you have stood up and said you will do everything you can to stop future earthquakes as a result of fracking. Pruitt: Senator, I’ve acknowledged that I’m concerned about the- Sanders: You acknowledged that you are concerned. Pruitt: Yes. Sanders: Your state is having a record number of—well, if that’s the kind of administrator for the EPA—your state’s having a record-breaking number of earthquakes, you acknowledge you are concerned; if that’s the kind of EPA administrator you will be, you are not going to get my vote. 2:37:43 Senator John Barrasso: I want to talk about some of the concerns I have with overregulation, and I’ll ask, do you have the same concerns with the overregulation of U.S. manufacturing over the last eight years? I believe we’ve _____(00:08) exported manufacturing jobs overseas, jobs that go with them in terms of the manufacturing of those goods to places like China and India that are going to produce those products in a less environmentally friendly way. And do you agree with this notion that this approach harms not just the environment, but also our own U.S. economy? Pruitt I believe, Senator, that it puts us in an economic disadvantage when we don’t hear all voices in the rulemaking process with respect to these issues, absolutely. Part 2 17:04 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Let me just ask you this as a hypothetical: if you had raised significant amounts of money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund from corporations who will be subject to EPA’s regulation, before EPA, with matters before EPA, might that place you in a conflict of interest? Scott Pruitt: The EPA ethics counsel has said—and by the way, these are career individuals as you know, Senator. Justina Fugh is a career person at EPA ethics, and so as they’ve reviewed these potential conflicts, I’ve disclosed all entities I’ve been affiliated with. Whitehouse: I understand that, but I’m asking you if you think it might place you in a conflict of interest, because we both understand that the ethics rules that the EPA’s enforcing predate Citizens United, predate dark money, and they’ve said in the letter that they aren’t even looking at that because they don’t have the authority to. That doesn’t mean it’s not a conflict of interest; it means that the regulatory authority on government ethics hasn’t caught up with this post-Citizens United, dark-money world. Pruitt: I think— Whitehouse: My question is, you’re a lawyer, you know conflicts of interest, you’ve been an attorney general, might it be a conflict of interest, within your definition of the term, if you had raised significant amounts of money for this Rule of Law Defense Fund and they’ll have business before EPA with you? Is that a potential conflict of interest? Pruitt: I think Justina Fugh actually did address those entities to the degree that I was never an officer of the super PAC that you referred to earlier, the Liberty 2.0, and so they looked at those entities to determine— Whitehouse: The question was fund raising. Pruitt: They looked at those entities— Whitehouse: That’s the question we don’t have any answers on is what you raised. Pruitt: They looked at those entities to determine what the nature of my relationship was and then indicated that those would have to be evaluated in the future as cases arose, and— Whitehouse: Right now, the chairman asked you a question which is, are there matters that might place you in a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed? You answered no. Might not having raised significant money—let’s say $1 million, let’s say you made a call to Devon Energy and said, I did you letter for you, RAGA needs a lot of money, we’ve got this dark-money thing where we can launder your identity clean off it, and the money will go into RAGA, I need a million bucks out of you—might that not create a conflict of interest for you if that were the facts? Pruitt: Ms. Fugh has indicated in her letter to me—again, these are career individuals at EPA ethics—that if particular matters involving specific parties arise in the future, it will be evaluated at that point, but I want to call into account— Whitehouse: But how will they know if you’re not willing to disclose that you raised the hypothetical million dollars from Devon Energy? Pruitt: Well, those aren’t even covered entities under her letter at this point. Whitehouse: That's my point. Pruitt: But it’s factual— Whitehouse: But that may very well create a conflict of interest, mightn’t it? Pruitt: Senator, I did not serve in an office or capacity at that entity. In fact, I was not [unclear] in any way— Whitehouse: You’ve said that already, too, but that also is not the question. The question is a very simple one: did you raise money for the Rule of Law Defense Fund from entities that will appear before EPA as potential defendants in subjects of regulation, and if so, how much, and what did you tell them, and what did you ask? It seems to me that’s not an unusual or— Pruitt: The Rule of Law Defense Fund, according to Ms. Fugh, would need to be a party in the future for that to be an issue. That’s what she’s indicated in her letter to me. Whitehouse: So— Pruitt: At the time— Whitehouse: So let me— Pruitt: —if issues arise in the future, I will seek the counsel of EPA ethics and follow the advice of those career folks to make a decision and recuse if necessary. That is— Whitehouse: But at this point— Pruitt: —something I commit to doing. Whitehouse: At this point, what I deduce from your statement is that if that set of hypothetical facts were true, if you had raised a million dollars from a big energy corporation to go through the Rule of Law Defense Fund to support your efforts at RAGA, that that is not something anybody should care about, even if that corporation is before you at EPA and subject to your regulation at EPA. Pruitt: Well, I think something that, if presented in the future, Justina Fugh and myself, EPA ethics would evaluate that, and I would take the appropriate steps to recuse if they told me to do so. Whitehouse: But how would it be presented in the future if you’re not willing to present it now? Pruitt: If there’s a matter— Whitehouse: Why does it matter in the future and not now? Pruitt: If there’s a matter or cast that comes before the EPA’s authority, that would be something. There’s ongoing—as you know, Senator, Ms. Fugh indicated this in her letter—there’s ongoing obligations that I will have, if confirmed as administrator, to bring those kinds of matters to attention of EPA ethics. Whitehouse: Well, for what it’s worth, I think that the Senate has a role in policing this as well, that the whole purpose of advice and consent and the reason there are these government ethics filings is so we can look at this exact question, and the fact that they haven’t been updated to take into account dark money and all these big political organizations that have been created with dark money doesn’t take away our Senate obligation to find out what conflicts of interest you will bring to the position of administrator. And it gives me very little comfort that you’re not willing to answer those questions here. My time has expired. I’ll continue in other rounds. 1:07:50 Senator Ed Markey: Do you support the current California waiver for greenhouse gas standards? Scott Pruitt: Senator, that’s what would be evaluated, and I think it’s very difficult, and we shouldn’t prejudge the outcome in that regard if confirmed as administrator. Markey: So you’re questioning the current waiver. You don’t think they’re entitled to the current waiver. Pruitt: Well, the waiver is something that’s granted on an annual basis, and the administrator would be responsible for making that decision. Markey: Yeah. And so you say you’re going to review it. Pruitt: Yes, Senator. Markey: Yeah. And when you say review, I hear undo the rights of the states, and I think to a certain extent that it’s troublesome because, obviously, what we’ve heard all day is how much you support states’ rights when it comes to these issues, but now when it comes to the right of California or Massachusetts and other states to be able to reduce carbon pollution, you’re saying you’re going to review that. So my problem really goes to this double standard that is created that when you sue from the Oklahoma perspective, from the oil and gas industry perspective, and you represent Oklahoma, you say they have a right to do what they want to do in the state of Oklahoma. But when it comes to Massachusetts or it comes to California, and it comes to the question of those states wanting to increase their protection for the environment, protect their victimization from carbon pollution, you say there you’re going to review. 1:51:58 Senator Jim Inhofe: The cost of regulations: as you know, the Supreme Court overturned the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics—that’s MATS—rule in 2015 because the EPA failed to—ignored the fact that the cost was $9.6 billion annually of the rule. Now, in fact, the EPA’s regularly issued rules over the past eight years that are very costly for our industries and our job creators. According to the CRS—now, CRS, when they make an evaluation, are much more conservative, the figure is always a very conservative figure, but they said the Clean Power Plan would be at least $5 billion to $8 billion a year. The figures I’ve heard on that are far greater because it wouldn’t be that much different than the old systems that they tried to do through legislation: the methane standards on oil and gas facilities, $315 million a year; the new ozone standards, $1.4 billion; the 2015 coal ash standards, $587 million a year; and the 2011 sulfur dioxide standards, $1.5 billion a year. Now, when you hear this, all this money is being spent on compliance costs by our job creators, people out there that are working for a living, and they’re hiring people. What are you thoughts, and what do you believe should be the role of the costs of EPA’s decision making? Pruitt: I think it’s very important in the rule-making process, Senator, and the Supreme Court and courts have recognized that very important factor. 1:54:46 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: We have been talking about fundraising done by you for the Rule of Law Defense Fund during the time when you were both a board member and for a full year the chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund and the fact that we have exactly zero information in this committee about that fundraising. We also have zero—and let me ask unanimous consent for the page from— Chairman Barrasso: Without objection. Whitehouse: —the filing that discloses that he was in fact a member of the board of directors and chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund. We also have a meeting agenda from the Republican Attorney Generals Association during a time that you were executive committee member of the Republican Attorney Generals Association meeting at The Greenbrier, which I’ll stipulate for my friend from West Virginia is a lovely place to go, and the agenda, which I’d like to take this page of and put into the record, mentions a private meeting with Murray Energy. It mentions a private meeting with Southern Company. It mentions a private meeting with the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers. If you’ll show the graphic, these are all the same groups that I’d been asking about in terms of your fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund, and there’s Murray Energy, and there’s Southern Company, and I’m sure the American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers represent a lot of the others. As I understand it, we know nothing—no minutes, no statements, no reports—about what took place in those meetings that are described as private meetings on a sheet that is stamped “confidential.” Correct? We know nothing about the content of those meetings. Scott Pruitt: Senator, I didn’t generate the document. I know nothing about how that document got generated or what— Whitehouse: Are you denying that those private meetings took place? Pruitt: No, Senator. I just didn’t generate the document and don’t know about the content other than what you’ve represented. Whitehouse: Okay. And we don’t know. And because you were on the executive committee of RAGA, that’s information that we could get, right? I mean, it’s available, if there were minutes or reports out of those meetings, notes taken; but we don’t have them, correct? Pruitt: Senator, that would be a request made to the Republican Attorney Generals Association. And I might add, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, there’s a Democrat Attorney Generals Association as well. 1:59:43 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Given how many of these groups have important financial interests before the EPA, do you not think that 3,000 emails back and forth between you and your office and them are relevant to potential conflict of interest as an administrator and should be before us as we consider this? Scott Pruitt: Again, I think the EPA ethics council has put out a very clear process with respect to covered entities, as we described earlier, and on particular matters and specific cases, I will follow advice of that EPA career person, ethics, to make sure that there are recusing [unclear]— Whitehouse: You keep saying that, but the problem is— Chairman Barrasso: The senator’s time has expired. Whitehouse: Will you finish my sentence? Barrasso: Please do. Whitehouse: The problem with that is that if you haven’t disclosed any of this information, then the EPA ethics council would have no idea to even look. They would have no idea what the risks are. You can’t say, nobody can look at whether I did this, but by the way, they’re going to look at it. It just doesn’t add up. 2:12:30 Senator Jeff Merkley: Ten years ago we were talking about models that led to the conversation Senator Inhofe had about Climategate, about wrestling with assumptions and models. We don’t need models now; we have facts on the ground: the moose are dying because the ticks aren’t being killed by the winter being cold enough, the fish are migrating on the Atlantic coast, and Maine’s losing its lobsters to Canada. These facts on the ground are extraordinarily real, they have a huge economic impact, and shouldn’t we take a very serious approach to the urgency of this problem as we see it descending upon us? Scott Pruitt: Senator, I think the EPA—and if confirmed [missing audio] and obligation to deal with the issue. The Massachusetts v. EPA case says that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and as such, that’s what generated the 2009 endangerment finding. So I think there is a legal obligation presently for the EPA administrator to respond to the CO2 issue through proper regulations. Cover Art Design by

CD148: Trump’s First Laws

9 april 2017 | 67 min

We have the first wave of the Trump laws! In this episode, highlights of the most impactful laws from the first three months of the 115th Congress, which include favors to the fossil fuel industry, gun industry, telecommunications industry, and defense contractors. In addition, learn about a law (that’s flown completely under the radar) that fundamentally changes how NASA operates. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bills Outline General James Mattis from the law that prohibits anyone from serving as Defense Secretary within seven years of leaving military service (Mattis had retired less than four years before his appointment). Gives the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to get federal agency records for audits and investigations Requires agency heads to - not just their actions - that the agency will take when given recommendations by the GAO and requires the reports to be given to more Congressional committees Makes it easier for the GAO to Gives the GAO an requiring companies listed in the stock market to publicly report payments by the fossil fuel and mineral industries to the US or foreign governments if the payments are over $100,000 in a year. a Department of Interior regulation known as the which aimed to reduce pollution from coal mining by blocking mining within 100 feet of streams and requiring coal mining companies to restore the land their use to it's pre-mining condition. a that never went into effect that would have prohibited who receive disability checks for mental illness from buying guns. the NASA administrator to create a plan to use current and former NASA employees to engage with K-12 female students to encourage them to pursue careers in aerospace. The plan must be submitted in 90 days. the National Science Foundation to recruit women to work in commercial science and engineering - $19.5 billion for NASA operations for 2017 Declares that it will be US policy that Sense of Congress: should be the primary means of transporting US astronauts to and from the International Space Station and reliance upon Russian transportation should be ended as soon as possible. Commercial providers of NASA services will have to provide "evidence-based support for their costs and schedules" only to "transition in a step-wise approach from the current regime that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship to a regime where NASA could be one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit non-governmental human space flight enterprise." The first report on progress will be Contracts between NASA and private providers are from lawsuits for "death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property resulting from launch services and reentry services carried out under the contract" for any amount over what their insurance covers. The immunity exclude claims resulting from willful misconduct by the private provider , which include "to enable a capability to extend human presence, including potential human habitation on another celestial body and a thriving space economy in the 21st Century." There will be a specific focus on provisions of law that required the government specifically to have the ability to restart the Space Shuttle program, if needed. the NASA Administrator to conduct long-term medical monitoring and treatment of astronauts with no out-of-pocket costs for the astronauts . a that would give the public a larger and earlier role in management plans for public land. The public would have been able to submit data & other information. The public also would have been given information as the plans were developed, allowing the public to comment during the planning process instead of after. a written by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA that would have made federal contractors prove their compliance with fourteen Federal labor laws, which would then be taken into consideration by agencies when awarding contracts. The contractors would also have to report their wages paid to employees to the agencies and would have limited forced arbitration of employee claims. a that would have pushed states to weigh student achievement via test scores of 95% of their students and graduation rates when determining which schools are "underperforming". The rule also would have required schools to provide parents and the public with more information on their annual report card. a that outlined indicators that states would have to use to judge teacher performance and tied results to some Federal aid funding. a that allowed but limited the drug testing of people receiving unemployment benefits. People could only be tested if they were dismissed for substance abuse related reasons and only if their jobs required carrying a firearm, aviation flight crews, air traffic controllers, commercial drivers, railroad crews, pipeline crews, and commercial maritime crews. a that would have required Internet service providers to obtain our approval if they were going to share our information, and not condition service on an acceptance of data sharing, and to notify us if our data was compromised. Additional Reading Article: by Kelly Mcevers, NPR, March 27, 2017. Article: by Andrew Wagner and Nsikan Akpan, PBS, March 24, 2017. Article: by Dana Goldstein, The New York Times, March 9, 2017. Article: by Chelsea Harvey, The Washington Post, March 8, 2017. Article: by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, March 8, 2017. Congressional Record: , House of Representatives, March 7, 2017. Article: by Ali Vitali, NBC News, February 28, 2017. Article: by Alina Selyukh, NPR, February 24, 2017. Article: by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 16, 2017. Article: by Joseph Morton, Omaha World Herald, February 3, 2017. Article: by Paul Rauber, Sierra, February 1, 2017. Article: by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 1, 2017. Article: by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 1, 2017. Press Release: by Representative Bill Johnson, January 30, 2017. Press Release: , Chairman Bill Huizenga, January 30, 2017. Op-Ed: by Stuart Shapiro, The Hill, April 17, 2015. References U.S. Dept of Labor: Senator Al Franken: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, February 16, 2017. Video: , Oval Office, March 21, 2017. Cover Art Design by

CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico

31 mars 2017 | 164 min

What is Puerto Rico? Many Americans - if not most - are unaware that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. In this episode, learn the history of our scandalous treatment of the US citizens living in Puerto Rico and explore how Puerto Rico’s past foreshadowed the United States' present… and possibly our future. Executive Producers: Ralph and Carol Lynn Rivera, Brandon K. Lewis Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Book: by Nelson A. Denis, March 2016. Article: by Suzanne Gamboa, NBC News, March 22, 2017. Document: , Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico, March 22, 2017. Article: by Ana Mulero, Healthcare Dive, March 21, 2017. Article: by Binyamin Appelbaum, The New York Times, March 15, 2017. Letter: , Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico, March 13, 2017. Press Release: by Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, March 13, 2017. Article: by Luis J. Valentin, Caribbean Business, March 9, 2017. Article: , Globe control board opinion, The Boston Globe, March 5, 2017. Article: by Danica Coto, Salon, February 3, 2017. Letter: , Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico, January 18, 2017. Article: by Tatiana Darie, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017. Article: by Katherine Greifeld, Bloomberg, September 30, 2016. Article: by Valeria Pelet, The Atlantic, September 3, 2016. Op-Ed: by Johnny Rullan, Morning Consult, June 20, 2016. Article: by Richard Wolf, USA Today, June 9, 2016. Article: by Alan Yuhas, The Guardian, June 9, 2016. Op-Ed: by Nelson A. Denis, Truthout, May 19, 2016. Article: by Jonathan Crawford, Bloomberg, March 23, 2016. Article: by Heather Long, CNN Money, February 21, 2016. Article: by Rory Carroll, Business Insider, July 9, 2015. Article: by Vanessa Rodriguez, OpenSecrets.org, June 4, 2015. Interview: by Mark Karlin, Truthout, May 24, 2015. Article: by Gene Demby, NPR, May 18, 2015. Article: by Janet Novack, Forbes, January 27, 2015. Article: by Robert W. wood, Forbes, January 13, 2015. Article: by D'Vera Cohn, Eileen Pattien and Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew Research Center, August 11, 2014. Article: by Sital S. Patel and Ben Eisen, Market Watch, April 22, 2014. Article: by Rebecca Burns, Michael Donley, and Carmilla Manzanet, Moyers & Company, April 2, 2014. Article: , Bond News, Reuters, February 10, 2014. Article: by Lizette Alvarez, The New York Times, February 8, 2014. Article: , Everything Everywhere, June 27, 2013. Document: by R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service, June 25, 2013. GAO Report: by Jeffry Valentin-Mari, Ph.D. and Jose I. Alameda-Lozada, Ph.D. April 26, 2012. Article: by Danica Coto, The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 14, 2011. Article: by Abbie Boudreau and Scott Bronstein, CNN, February 1, 2010. Article: by Timothy L. O'Brien, The New York Times, July 19, 2004. Case Study: by the Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate, July 15, 2004. Article: by Zareena Hussain, The Tech, January 7, 1998. Article: by William K. Stevens, The New York Times, May 14, 1985. References U.S. Energy Information Administration Video: This Day in History: FBI Files 1986 Congressional Report: 1995 Dept of Energy Report: OpenSecrets Excelerate Energy American Maritime Partnership Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico Control Board Control Board Website: Department of Economic Development & Commerce: 26 US Code 936: IRS: Forbes Company Profiles Travelponce.com: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, March 22, 2017. Witnesses Panel I The Honorable Ricardo Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico Mr. Gerardo Portela-Franco, Executive Director - Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority Panel 2 Mr. Jose B. Carrion III, Chairman - Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico Mr. Luis Benitez Hernandez, Chairman - PREPA Governing Board Mr. Stephen Spencer, Managing Director - Houlihan Lokey Mr. Adam Bergonzi, Managing Director & Chief Risk Officer - National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation Mr. Rob Bryngelson, President & CEO - Excelerate Energy Ms. Ana J. Matosantos, Member of Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico Interview: Interview with , March 7, 2017. Luis: Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, contrary to common opinion, we do pay some federal taxes. What we don’t pay is federal income tax. Jen: Okay. Luis: So we don’t pay federal income tax. However, Puerto Ricans pay Medicare at the same rate that you pay in San Francisco/California. Jen: Do Puerto Ricans get the same benefits that I get in San Francisco? Luis: No, we do not get the same benefits that you get in San Francisco. Jen: Oh. Luis: So, for example, there are states like California, New York, and other states that I believe get about an 83 percent federal subsidy for Medicare expenses. There are other states—and I realize I’m being recorded, but don’t quote me on it. This you can check, also, very easily— Jen: Sure. Luis: Other states—I think it’s Tennessee— Jen: And you don’t have to give me exact numbers. Just go ahead and, like, big picture, tell me the situation. Luis: Got it. Jen: Yeah. Luis: Even better. So, there are states like California and New York that get about 80-some percent of reimbursement on their major expenses from the federal government. There are other states that get less. I think Tennessee gets less; I think Tennessee gets, like, 50-some percent. Puerto Rico, I think it gets about 23 percent. Jen: Oh, god. Luis: It’s important to understand that, where does the other—if we use 23 percent as an example for Medicare—where does the other 77 percent come from? State funding. Jen: Okay. Luis: So, please understand that if you move to Puerto Rico as a U.S. citizen, and you, for any reason, need Medicare, and you go to the hospital, those hospitals that you go to have to comply with MCS, which is part of HHS—Health and Human Services. And you have to comply with all the regulations and requirements of a hospital to be reimbursed and enjoy federal dollars. However, that institution/Puerto Rico is only getting cents on the dollar compared to other states, but someone needs to make up for that short fall. Jen: Yeah. Luis: The state does. Jen: Well— Luis: That lack of equality translates to Puerto Rico’s budget. Luis: I’m a proud American, and I will defend our country wherever I go. Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: But I’m also a realist. I cannot expect Congress to give the people in Puerto Rico a fair share of the pie when we don’t have a delegation sitting at the table when the pie is divided. Luis: When I ran the office of the governor of Puerto Rico in New York, and we were lobbying to be included into the Affordable Care Act, my biggest argument, when I met with members of the Senate or the House, in states that had a large Puerto Rican population—Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, by way of example—my point to these members of Congress was, I need your help; I need you to be a voice to Puerto Rico to be included in the Affordable Care Act. And the staff would be like, are you kidding me, Luis? That is none of our business. And I will be like, well, let me—give me an opportunity to maybe convince you that it is your business. The problem is— Jen: Yeah, because you’ll pay for them when they come here. Luis: —you will pay for it. And by the way, we don’t even have a way to qualify because guess what, a lot of them are coming in, getting services, and going back to Puerto Rico once they’re done. Some are staying— Jen: Yeah, that's what I would do. Luis: Some are staying, but others are just coming here, and you have no way of qualifying and quantifying it because they’re United States citizens. You can’t stop it. Jen: Yeah— Luis: And how could you blame them? How could you blame them if Puerto Rico does not have the facilities to treat a cancer or SSI or any other initiative and my mother is risking her life? I’m going to take her to Orlando— Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: —without a doubt. Jen: Yeah. Luis: I will say that Puerto Rico, even though we have all the issues that you and I have been talking about, we are still part of the United States, and it’s somewhat similar to the changes that we see here, stateside, in the contiguous 48 states, where I would say that from coast to coast, from Florida to California, I think the middle class in the United States has been shrinking. Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: Likewise in Puerto Rico. Jen: Okay. Luis: But I would say that it is more like the United States, and we are not like Latin America and other third-world jurisdictions. We have a decent-size middle class because we don’t have the IRS because we are not paying federal income tax. There is in Puerto Rico a large underground economy where people work on the side, get paid in cash, and don’t report their earnings to the—there's no IRS—or to the local version of the IRS which is the Treasury Department. So, what you have in Puerto Rico is that you see somewhat of a thriving economy. So those people that are in commercial real estate and they’re doing business with big national chains like Macy’s and JCPenney and all that stuff, you will see in Puerto Rico sales records being broken and people spending a lot of money in the island. So, it’s not like the Dominican Republic. Even people in the projects that are subsidized by state and federal dollars, you can see that they have a/c in the walls, the projects are made out of cement, and you will be able to see all that when you go there in person. So, when you drive around Puerto Rico, all over the island, it is nothing like the Dominican Republic. We are way better, and— Jen: Well, I’ve never been there, either, so a comparison doesn’t really… Luis: Yeah. We are way better—and I realize that I’m about to contradict myself, okay?—we are way better, and it is thanks to the United States. So even though inequality has got all these problems and it’s affected the debt and all that stuff and we are looking now at serious issues, Puerto Rico is still better than—I will never move to Cuba because I think Cuba is better than Puerto Rico, so I get it— Puerto Rico is United States, and we’re doing better than most. Jen: So that brings me to the control board, because now we have Puerto Ricans saying on paper, no doubt, we want to become a state, and yet Congress just did this thing where your government, your state government, or closest thing—what do you call it? Territorial government? Luis: Yeah. Jen: Is that the proper phrase? Luis: Territory. Jen: Okay. Luis: Yeah. Jen: So your territorial government was, basically just taken over by this weird board that has some dictatorial powers. Is there any one in Puerto Rico that’s happy about this? Is there something I’m not seeing? Luis: Yeah. Okay, so, I’m going to compare that. First of all, let’s be fair, and we’re not the first jurisdiction that, let’s say, enjoys the benefit of a control board, because D.C., New York City, have both had it in different jurisdiction relationships, but they did, and it helped. Okay? Jen: O-kay. Luis: The difference between New York City is the following: you have a city that imposed a board by the state. So people in the city of New York, even though they had a control board years back, they had a control board what was decided by politicians who they elected. Jen: Yeah. Luis: Okay? Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: So, that makes it—but it’s still the same in that you have a higher jurisdiction imposing a control board for fiscal reasons over a lower jurisdiction. Correct? Jen: Yes. Luis: And then you have D.C. They also had a control board, and the list goes on and use the federal government, if I’m not mistaken. So there you have a jurisdiction of a federal imposing in D.C., which is not independent. Now, let me tell you where emotions can go a little crazy here. And remember I’m a stakeholder; I’m pro American. Jen: Yeah. Luis: However, we did not invite the United States of America, back a hundred-and-some years ago; we were invaded. Jen: Yeah. Luis: So, we are invaded, we are treated unequally, that inequality causes financial chaos. We are told by the Supreme Court that our constitution is not really a constitution—you should research that; that was recent—an opinion by the Supreme Court. So, really, our constitution, that we thought we had a constitution, is not worth anything on paper because Congress has complete control of that jurisdiction. Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: So, what we have is, back to your question about a board, is a federal government imposing a board on people who did not vote for those that imposed that board. Jen: Yeah. And I know that in Congress Puerto Rico has a representative at the time that this was created—I think it was Pedro Pierluisi—but he didn’t have a vote, so— Luis: No. Jen: And even on the board, the governor gets to sit at the table, but the governor of Puerto Rico doesn’t get a vote of the board. Luis: No. And there’s a slight correction to what you said about Pierluisi in your podcast: the resident commissioner does have a vote in Congress—not on committees, on subcommittees. Okay? Jen: Okay, so he has a vote on a subcommittee but not— Luis: No. Jen: —in the committee or the main House. Luis: Correct. Now, are you ready for the kicker? Jen: Yes. Luis: If the vote on a subcommittee comes to a point where the resident commissioner becomes the deciding vote, it doesn’t go. You’ve got to vote again. Jen: No! Luis: Yeah. Jen: So, that’s— Luis: Can I give you an— Jen: —kind of not really having a vote. I mean— Luis: No. Jen: —he does— Luis: No, I know. Luis: Let’s talk for a second about the pharmaceutical industry, okay? Jen: Yeah, because— Luis: Not to be confused— Jen: —just so that I’m on the same page as you, you worked for Pfizer for a while, too, right? Luis: I directed governor affairs for Pfizer, and that included jurisdictions of New York City and Puerto Rico. Jen: Okay— Luis: And San Francisco. Jen: —and when did you do that? Luis: I did that in 20—I took a year off of the government and I went to Pfizer, did not like it, then went back to Puerto Rico government. So that was 2011. Jen: So was that before the Clinton administration took away the tax credits or after? Luis: Oh, no, after. Oh, yes. Jen: Okay, okay. Luis: 2011, before I became a deputy secretary of the United States. Jen: Okay, got you. Luis: Okay. Jen: So this is after all the tax benefits were gone, and was Pfizer still—when did the pharmaceutical industry, like, leave Puerto Rico? When did they leave? Luis: No way. Why are you saying that? Jen: Because that's what I read. Luis: That's wrong. Jen: Is that not what happened? Luis: No! That’s wrong. I’m about to clarify that. Jen: Okay. Luis: All right. So, if you look at the pharmaceutical industry, if you search, let’s say, BIO, I believe BIO is still the pharmaceutical, big pharma association, the industry association, trade association, okay? If you look at that, you will see that in Puerto Rico BIO had a membership of a huge number of pharmaceuticals. And then you may look at BIO now, and the Puerto Rico chapter, which has another name, has way less pharmaceuticals. So the normal person that doesn’t understand how things work will say, well, everyone left. Well, let’s slow down and look at what are the names that are missing. Well, some of those names don’t exist anymore because the industry has completely merged and consolidated their resources. By way of example, I will tell you that in Puerto Rico alone, Pfizer bought Wyeth. Jen: Pfizer what? Luis: Pfizer bought Wyeth. Jen: Oh, okay. So, okay. Luis: Okay? Jen: Gotcha. So Pfizer got bigger by eating a smaller company. Luis: Correct. And there’s nothing wrong with that. So what happened was that I believe at that time when that happened, Pfizer had three operations in Puerto Rico, Wyeth had three operations in Puerto Rico, okay? So now when they merge, they have six plants in Puerto Rico. So what do they do? They are able to— economies of scale and to do streamline, and they are able to close two and stay with four. And now Wyeth is not in Puerto Rico— Jen: But the effect— Luis: —and people think Wyeth— Jen: Is the effect of that, of the people of Puerto Rico, that the people that worked in those two plants are now out of a job? Luis: But it has nothing to do with 936. Jen: Remind me. I did that episode, like, eight months ago. 936 was the tax credits disappearing? Was that…? Luis: That’s exactly—they disappeared with a coin toss, you said. Jen: Okay, okay. Thank you. Luis: So, so, that consolidation, that example that I’m sharing with you, I believe all happened after 936 stopped, but the reason why Pfizer and Wyeth consolidated was for reasons that had nothing to do with 936. Jen: Yeah. Luis: It had a lot to do with being more productive and being able to share assembly lines and being able to share resources and the same CEO and all that stuff. And so, to the untrained eye, to the Puerto Rican, what they think or see is, oh, Wyeth left. No, they didn’t leave; it was absorbed by a larger pharmaceutical. Jen: So, is the pharmaceutical industry still a major employer in Puerto Rico? Luis: Yes, it is. And I will tell something else: Pfizer and many pharmaceuticals, for many years, are enjoying tax benefits on—there’s something called CFC—controlled foreign corporations—and they are able to enjoy benefits that are comparable to 936. It’s just a different name; a different loophole, you want to call it—I don’t want to call it a loophole—it’s a different tax advantage. Luis: Remember, the pharmaceutical industry, way back when—and we’re talking about right after Puerto Rico changed from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy, okay? Jen: Mm-hmm. Luis: I really need you to follow me on this. Puerto Rico used to be sugarcane industry. Jen: Yeah. Luis: And we changed. Take my great uncle. He was the governor of Puerto Rico for the other party, the commonwealth party, and him and Governor Luis Munoz Marin came up with this tax incentive with the federal government and 936 were invented, and Puerto Rico changed—completely—and became a manufacturing economy. Jen: Okay. Luis: No more sugar cane; now we’re manufacturing. And when that happened, pharma came to Puerto Rico. What we have to remember is manufacturing industry also included, probably, the largest textile industry. Textile was huge in Puerto Rico. Now— Jen: Is it still there? Luis: No! Why—now, you’re smart. Why do you think textile is gone in Puerto Rico? Where is textile nowadays? Jen: Probably China, India. Luis: Yes, yes! So, in this case, it left to other jurisdictions for minimum wage and for a bunch of other reasons. 936? Yes! It was not great when it left, but the industry changed. Textile goes wherever you have the cheapest labor. And Puerto Rico— Jen: So— Luis: —cannot compete with India, China, Dominican Republic, where people get paid a dollar an hour. Forget it. You can’t compete with that. Jen: And it sounds like the same problem we’re having in California, in Texas, and Massachusetts, and everywhere. Luis: Yeah, yes. Jen: What would you like to see happen on the island? What do you think could help? Luis: Becoming a state. Jen: So that's the goal. Luis: Yes, without a shadow of a doubt, because if we become a state, we are able now to have the congressional mitigation to help us, and we’re able to fight for equal funding so that the state does not need to subsidize such huge percentages. And now we have an equal playing field. Now if I get in debt— Jen: Okay. Luis: Now if I get in debt, go ahead and criticize me all you want. Jen: Well, then you have bankruptcy protection if you go into debt. Luis: Also. Luis: So, you understand the reason why people are going to Puerto Rico is because of Law 20 and 22, right? Jen: Um, I don't know. No. Luis: So, I’m going to share with you the Law 20 and Law 22. Both laws were passed by Governor Luis Fortuno, which is a governor that I worked for. Jen: Okay. Luis: And those two laws were used, pushed, and promoted big time by the previous governor, Alejandro Garcia Padilla. You can do a quick Google, and you will see how most people went nuts over those two laws, and those two laws is the sole reason why people in stateside, mainland U.S., are fleeing to Puerto Rico to enjoy those tax benefits. Jen: Well, what are those benefits? Luis: I'm going to tell you. Jen: Okay. Luis: So, first, you have Law 20. Law 20 is better known as Export Services law, meaning you and I can open a corporation in Puerto Rico that exports services outside of Puerto Rico. Services, not manufacturing. So you and I can open a consulting firm that consults on any issue, and if our clients are not in Puerto Rico, if our clients are in Europe or New York or California, when that company in Puerto Rico bills those accounts, that corporation will only pay local four percent tax and no sales tax. Wow! Jen: Okay. That's crazy. Luis: Okay? So that means that you and I can have an existing company and have a law firm in New York, and you and I are the partners, and we’ll make—and let’s say that half of our clients are not in Puerto Rico, so why don’t we just open an office in Puerto Rico and do all the billing out of Puerto Rico and serve those clients from Puerto Rico—by the way, you and I can hire attorneys in Puerto Rico that are bilingual; graduated from Harvard, Yale, all those popular universities; pay even a fraction of what you and I would pay a lawyer in New York, and we bill them to the clients that are outside Puerto Rico, and we only pay four percent tax. That’s Law 20. It’s beautiful. Jen: Wow. Okay. Luis: All right. So, now, Law 20 was supplemented, complemented, by Law 22. Law 22 is called the Investor Act. So, now, you and I are the partners of that law firm, and we’ve moved operations and the corporation is only paying four percent tax, local tax, okay? Jen: Okay. Luis: Got it. You and I have not lived in Puerto Rico for the last 15 years. Jen: Okay. Luis: So we, you and I, have our attorneys will review Law 20, and what Law 20 says is you and I can move to Puerto Rico personally, and when we’re in Puerto Rico, our Puerto Rico-sourced income will be tax free. Jen: So the income—so, it’s the Investment Act. So are you talking about, like— Luis: Yes. Jen: —instead of paying capital gains tax, they pay nothing. Luis: Nothing. Now, it needs to be Puerto Rico-sourced income. That means that if you and I own Apple shares, or Microsoft, and we move to Puerto Rico, that’s passive income. We’ll pay taxes because that income is generated outside of Puerto Rico. Jen: Okay. Luis: But if you and I go to Puerto Rico like Paltry and Paulson moved to Puerto Rico, and we invest in property, and we invest in the business of Puerto Rico, that Puerto Rico-sourced income will be tax free. Jen: Federally or are there any state taxes? Luis: Both. Jen: Wow. So the state— Luis: I don’t have the law— Jen: —doesn’t even get anything from that. Luis: Well, yeah, they do because think about all the jobs. You know it’s crazy how much money is generated by having those people in Puerto Rico. Of course it generates— Jen: Yeah. I guess that makes sense. Luis: It’s called economic development. Yes, it generates—I have a lot of people that have new accounts with those individuals all the way from real estate, legal fees, engineering. They’re all millions and millions and millions of dollars that were not moving around the economy until they moved there. Jen: And so, are these two laws something that you personally support? Are they a good idea? Luis: I think it’s a good idea. We somehow need to generate some federal activity. Jen: We do, but at the same time, your government is broke. So isn’t raising revenues, isn’t that a solution? Luis: Well, no. Well, you know what? It’s a little contradicting, so when I say I endorse it, but I just told you a little while ago that I want to be a state. And if I was a state, that would probably not be possible. Jen: Yeah. Luis: Those two laws would not be possible if we’re a state, but guess what—we’re not a state. Jen: Yeah. Luis: And what the heck are we supposed to do? Jen: Yeah. I guess that’s true. You’ve got to play the hand you’re dealt. Okay. Luis: I would rather not have those two laws and be a state. Jen: Okay. That's fair. Luis: Education. I think that your podcast touched on education about 100 schools being closed. Jen: Yeah. Luis: Yeah, but how many people have moved to Orlando? We do not have— Jen: So there's not as many kids? Luis: No! No! Now, I’m going to defend, I’m going to defend this. With me, you may go crazy because I jump from side to side, so for one, one part of me says— Jen: I do that, too. I totally get it. Luis: One part of me says, the student body—I think the island student population went down from half a million to 400,000 students. That’s 25 percent. Jen: Okay. Luis: Okay. That means that I should be able to cut 25 percent of schools and 25 percent of my budget. Right? Well, let’s look at the other side. You and I, again, are married, right? Jen: Uh-huh. Luis: And you and I have a boat, and we have two kids, and the schools that we have our kids are three blocks away. Beautiful. Well, you and I bought a house because it was right next to the school. So now they’re going to close that school, and the next school is five miles away. Jen: Yeah. Luis: Are you and I pissed? Jen: Of course. Luis: I don’t give a crap that there’s less students. I’m going to picket, and I’m going to make a lot of noise, and I’m going to make it impossible for the government to close that school, which is what happens. You know what? Somebody else should sacrifice, not my wife and I. We have it good. I like to be able to walk three blocks and grab my children by the hand, have a beautiful conversation with them while we eat cookies, and we go to the school right next door. Well, guess what? The population is so much smaller now that somehow we cannot justify having the same number of schools open. I believe that happened in Chicago under new jurisdictions. We have to adjust. So guess who needs to deliver those bad news? The fiscal control board, because you cannot possibly justify having all those schools open. So who’s going to be the bad guy? Thank God there’s a fiscal control board, because if you leave, you allow the local elected official to make those decisions, it would be political suicide. And that transfers to any state. Ask any governor to close down 25 percent of schools, and they’re going to lose the election. Jen: Well, I mean, I think that’s just a part of the job. The problem— Luis: I know! Jen: —that I’m seeing as— Luis: No, but wait a second the problem is that the governor can’t do it because when you commit political suicide, and you need to support the legislature to do that, the elected officials in the legislative body would be the first ones that won’t back you up. They’ll say, you crazy? I’m not going to back you up; I want to get elected next time. That’s a huge problem. He says, I can’t do it without you. People are like let’s not do it; let’s let the other guy do it. And he’s like, no, we don’t have enough money. The students are leaving Orlando and New York. They moved away. We don’t need so many schools; we need to close. And the senators will be like, I’m not going to pass that law; are you kidding me? We’re all going to be out of a job. Jen: Well, I mean, and that’s the thing, like, maybe you’re not supposed to serve forever. Like, I just feel like those tough decisions are a part of a job of being elected, and one of my concerns of this control board is that those families, they can’t petition to this board. There is no voice for the Puerto Ricans where the governor doesn’t have a vote. I guess I’d feel more comfortable with it if I thought that those families could petition to their governor, and it would be one vote at the table that would have those political calculations in mind. But with these seven people that were selected by Congress, I mean, is there any concern that they’re going to prioritize the bankers over the Puerto Rican people? Luis: I think a lot of people are concerned about that. Cover Art Design by

CD146: Repeal & Replace

13 mars 2017 | 141 min

“Repeal & Replace” is on the move! The American Health Care Act is the Republican plan to partially repeal the Affordable Care Act and it is quickly moving through Congress. In this episode, discover exactly what the bill would do if it were to become law. Also, Jen gives status updates on bills listeners are concerned about. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bill Outline Read The Bill: Part 1 Summary: Part 2 Summary: Title I - Energy & Commerce Subtitle A - Patient Access to Public Health Programs Sec. 101: Defunds the at the end of 2018 Sec. 103: Prohibits any Federal funding for any non-profit that performs abortions for a year Subtitle B - Medicaid Program Enhancement Sec. 111: Reduces Medicaid funding Sec. 112: Repeals the Medicaid expansion Sec. 112 (c): Repeals the requirement that Medicaid cover "essential health benefits" as of January 1, 2020. Sec. 114: Prevents Medicaid for lottery winners Sec. 115: Gives $10 billion extra to the "non-expansion States" Sec. 116: Forces States to verify Medicaid eligibility every six months, gives them more enforcement money, and allows $20,000 fines for ineligible people who get Medicaid benefits. Subtitle C - Per Capita Allotment for Medical Assistance Sec. 121: Caps Medicaid funding on a per capita basis. States that spend too much one year will have their Medicaid cut more the following year. Subtitle D - Patient Relief and Health Insurance Market Stability Sec. 131: Repeals the lower out-of-pocket limits for low-income people effective in 2020 Sec 132: Creates a $15 billion a year fund (which is reduced to $10 billion a year starting in 2020) for propping up the health insurance market by paying for "high risk" sick people Sec. 133: Starting in 2019, people who purchase insurance after a coverage gap of 63 days will be charged a 30% penalty for a year. The insurance companies get to keep all the extra money. Sec. 134: The requirements that bronze, silver, gold, platinum level plans exist and must cover certain percentages of expenses and are repealed effective January 1, 2020. Sec. 135: Allows insurance companies to charge older people five times more than younger people (they're currently allowed to charge three times more) Part 2: Tax Provisions Prepared by the Ways and Means Committee (page 67) Page 67: Remuneration from Certain Insurers Starting in 2018, insurance companies can get between $500,000 and $1 million. Page 68: Repeal of Tanning Tax Starting in 2018, the 10% tax on indoor tanning is repealed. Page 69: Repeal of Tax on Prescription Medications Starting in 2018, a fee paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers & distributors will be repealed This will save the industry $2.8 billion per year Page 69: Repeal of Health Insurance Tax Starting in 2018, a fee on large health insurance companies, which is tied to and increases with premium growth rates, would be repealed. This will save the industry approximately $14 billion per year Page 70: Repeal of Net Investment Income Tax Starting in 2018, a 3.8% tax on net income from stock market investments over $200,000 will be repealed Page 71 (Section 1): Recapture Excess Advance Payments of Premium Tax Credits Starting in 2018, the limits on the amount of advanced-paid tax credits that can be taken back from low income people will be repealed. Page 71 (Section 2): Additional Modifications to Premium Tax Credit Allows tax credits to be used on "catastrophic-only" health insurance plans that are not listed on the exchanges and prohibits tax credits for any plan that covers abortions. Page 80 (Section 3): Premium Tax Credit Repeals tax credits for premiums starting in 2020. Page 81 (Section 4): Small Business Tax Credit Repeals the tax credit for employers with fewer than 25 employees who want to provide health benefits to their employees starting in 2020 and prohibits tax credits for any health plan that covers abortion. Page 84 (Section 5): Individual Mandate Reduces the tax penalties for failing to purchase insurance to $0 and back dates it to be effective in 2016. Page 84 (Section 6): Employer Mandate Reduces the tax penalties for employers who fail to provide health benefits to their employees to $0 and back dates it to be effective in 2016. Page 85 (Section 7): Repeal of the Tax on Employee Health Insurance Premiums and Health Plan Benefits Delays the start of a tax on insurance companies which charges a 40% excise tax on , which charge premiums more than $10,200/year ($850/month) for individuals until 2025. The 40% is only on the extra premiums charges above the cap. Currently aren't scheduled to take effect until 2020. Page 85 (Section 8): Repeal of Tax on Over-The-Counter Medications Starting in 2018, over-the-counter drugs can be purchased with . Page 86 (Section 10): Repeal of Limitations on Contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts Starting in 2018, the $2,500 limit on the amount that can be taken out of an employee's paycheck for employer health plans that use "flexible savings accounts" is repealed starting in 2018. Page 87 (Section 11): Repeal the Medical Device Tax Starting in 2018, repeals a , paid by manufacturers or importer, on sales of medical devices that are not generally purchased by the general public at retail stores. Part 89 (Section 14): Repeal of Medicare Tax Increase says that this section should change the tax for Medicare Hospital Insurance, but the text to be inserted is identical to current law Repeal Bill Current Law Page 90 (Section 15): Refundable Tax Credit for Health Insurance Creates a new tax credit structure tied to age instead of income for people making under $75,000 per year (the credits gradually reduce the more you make over $75,000) Under age 30: $2,000/yr Ages 30-40: $2,500/yr Ages 40-49: $3,000/yr Ages 50-59: $3,500/yr Over age 60: $4,000/yr The credits are capped at $14,000 per family for the five oldest individuals Page 120 (Section 16): Maximum Contribution Limit to Health Savings Account Increased to Amount of Deductible and Out-of-Pocket Limitation Starting in 2018, increases the amount than can be put in Health Savings Accounts Individual contribution limit raised from $2,250 to $5,000 per year. Family contribution limit raised from $4,500 to $10,000. Bills Discussed in this Episode : Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues Kills a rule that assesses the quality of teacher preparation programs : Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to “Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska” Kills an that limits hunting of animals not intended to be food in Alaska. : Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017 Forces courts to sanction lawyers for filing lawsuits deemed improper. : Innocent Party Protection Act Changes the procedures for state lawsuits being heard in Federal court. : Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 Class action lawsuits could only go forward if each person suffered the same type and scope of injury. : Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Allows people to carry concealed handguns in other states that issue concealed carry permits, in school zones, and on federally owned public land. : Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act Cuts off federal funds to cities that refuse to give the feds information about undocumented immigrants. : Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2017 Applies fines and up to five years in prison to any doctor that tries to perform an abortion or helps a woman get an abortion if they know it’s because of the sex or race of the child. : Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2017 Prohibits funding for Planned Parenthood for a year unless they promise to not perform abortions. Gives money to community health centers instead. : To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools Repeals the , which was enacted as a part of Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’, which is a commitment to equal access to quality education by giving money to low-income districts. Creates a voucher program that will give parents tax money to send their kids to private schools or home school Repeals nutrition standards for foods served in the school lunch and breakfast programs. : Postal Service Reform Act of 2017 Changes the postal service health benefits program and pension funding Changes post office operations: Stops door delivery to new addresses and changes how rates are determined in a way that doesn’t create an unfair competitive advantage for the post office : National Right-to-Work Act Prevents labor unions from forcing workers to pay dues (bankrupts unions by forcing them to provide services to non-paying workers) : To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. Ends the EPA in 2019 : AMP Act Amends copyright law to provide royalties to music producers, mixers, or sound engineers : To terminate the Department of Education /: 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened species. Additional Reading Article: by Ben Steverman, Bloomberg, March 8, 2017. Article: by Chrissie Juliano, Health Affairs Blog, March 7, 2017. Article: by Dan Mangan, CNBC, March 7, 2017. Article: by David Dayen, The Nation, March 7, 2017. Article: by Amy Martyn, Consumer Affairs, November 1, 2016. References GovTrack: Health Savings Accounts: News Release: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Sound Clip Sources Press Conference: , YouTube, March 9, 2017. Hearing: , March 8, 2017. Watch on CSPAN: - - - Hearing: , March 8, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Timestamps & Transcripts 13:24 Rep. Kathy Castor: This bill was released less than 48 hours ago without a bipartisan Congressional Budget Office score, so we don’t know how much it’s going to cost. Experts say it’s going to add to the deficit. We don’t know how many people are going to lose their insurance and how high the uninsured rate will go up in America because of this bill, because they didn’t take the time to wait, to see what that CBO score said. 3:05:25 Rep. Steve Scalise: We’ve asked CBO, by the way, for a score. Anybody who thinks we’re going to just wait and let some unelected bureaucrats in Washington stop us from following through on our promise to the American people that we’re going to repeal this failed law and finally rescue them from the double-digit increases in premiums and from the $10,000 and more in deductibles and all the other things that have destroyed good healthcare for them, we’re going to keep moving forward and fulfill that promise because the American people expect us to do it, they want us to do it, and CBO’s eventually going to come up with a score before it goes to budget committee, before it goes to the House floor. But in the meantime, if they can’t get the score out there, we’re still going to move forward and follow through on that promise. 3:15:10 Rep. Joe Barton: We’re all God’s children; we all want a CBO score. It’s not our fault that the CBO’s sitting on their bottom and not helping us. 8:35:34 Rep. Gus Bilirakis:We should be making it easier for small businesses to grow and succeed, not harder. 9:10:35 Rep. Frank Pallone: The problem that I see, though, is that—so, you and the others continue to talk about how bad the ACA is, and my point earlier when I mentioned you by name was because I’d like to see how you feel that your bill is going to improve any of these things. Now you mentioned deductibles. The way I read this bill—I’m not going to ask counsel because I read it, and I think it’s clear—the restrictions that we put on—or that have made it more difficult to increase deductibles with a private-insurance market, a lot of those are relaxed now. So I would venture to argue that if you have someone who’s complaining about deductibles, those deductibles are going to go up even more. Rep. John Shimkus: Yeah, but if I reclaim my time because, as you know, we’ve got two bills moving through the write at the same process that the benefit of what’s going on now is you talk to our friends in Ways and Means is the strong development of health savings accounts, which fills that gap, right? You buy insurance for a higher cost. If you live healthy lifestyles, you’ll be able to roll that over, the catastrophic number gets better, your payments get less if you believe in markets and competition. 10:16:45 Rep. Mike Doyle: I’m not sure what the gentleman is talking about when he talks about mandates. What mandate in the Obamacare bill does he take issue with? Certainly not with preexisting conditions or caps on benefits or letting your child stay on the policy to 26. So I’m curious, what is it we’re mandating— Rep. John Shimkus: Will the gentlemen yield? Doyle: Yeah, sure. Shimkus: What about men having to purchase prenatal care? Doyle: That—what— Shimkus: I’m just— Doyle: Every—that’s very— Shimkus: Is that not correct? Doyle: I—reclaiming my time. Shimkus: And should they? Doyle: Reclaiming my time. Chairman Greg Walden: Whoa, whoa, whoa— Doyle: There’s no such thing— Walden: —whoa, whoa, whoa. Doyle: —as à la carte— Walden: Regular order. Doyle: There’s no such thing as à la carte insurance, John. You know, you don’t get the— Shimkus: That's the point! Doyle: —list and say, give me that. Shimkus: That’s the point! We want the consumer to be able to go to the insurance market and be able to negotiate— Doyle: You tell— Shimkus:—on a plan— Doyle: Reclaiming my time. Walden: Whoa, whoa. Doyle: You tell me what insurance company will do that. There isn’t a single insurance— Walden: Gentleman’s time— Doyle: —in the world that does that. Walden: The gentleman’s time—the gentle— Doyle: You're talking about something that doesn't exist. Cover Art Design by

CD145: Price of Health Care

26 februari 2017 | 114 min

Former Congressman Tom Price is our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, making him the chief law enforcement officer of health care policy in the United States. In this episode, hear highlights from his Senate confirmation hearings as we search for clues as to the Republican Party plans for repealing the Affordable Care Act. We also examine the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law in December. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bill Outline Bill Highlights Title I: Innovation Projects & State Response to Opioid Abuse funding for research programs, if money is appropriated $1 billion for grants for States to deal with the opioid abuse crisis The effects of this spending on the Pay as you Go budget Title II: Discovery privacy protections for people who participate as subjects in medical research studies the Secretary of Health and Human Services to a do a review of reporting regulations for researchers in search of regulations to cut, including regulations on reporting financial conflicts of interest and research animal care. to collect payments on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Title III: Development additional data options for approving drug applications the review process for new "regenerative advanced therapy" drugs, which includes drugs "intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition" or is a therapy that involves human cells. antibacterial and antifungal drugs to be approved after only being tested on a "limited population" The drugs will have have a "Limited Population" label the FDA approval process for new medical devices that help with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions and that have no existing alternatives. Devices addressing rare diseases or conditions are allowed be approved with lower standards for effectiveness; this provision expands the definition of "rare" by . Each FDA employee involved in drug approvals will get training for how to make their reviews . : Delivery The new Secretary of Health and Human Services will have to develop a strategy to "reduce regulatory and administrative burdens (such as doucmentation requirements) relating to the " health information technology developers from certification if their system allows information blocking. Developers, networks, or exchanges caught blocking information . will develop the rules for exchanging health record information. Creates a job in the Medicare & Medicaid Services department for an . : Savings for the Prevention and Public Health Fund from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve : Ensuring Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Programs Keep Pace With Technology Authorizes money to be used for mental health services and substance abuse treatment : Promoting Access to Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Care a telephone and online service to help people locate mental health services and substance abuse treatment centers. Mental health and safe communities to test the idea of having court cases with mentally ill defendants heard in "drug or mental health courts" Other Medicare Provisions with Medicare Advantage organizations due to their failure to achieve a minimum quality rating before 2019. Additional Reading Article: by Jay Hancock and Rachel Bluth, Kaiser Health News, February 13, 2017. Article: by Amy Goldstein, The Washington Post, February 9, 2017. Article: by Jayne O'Donnell, USA Today, February 8, 2017. Article: by Marisa Taylor and Christina Jewett, Kaiser Health News, February 7, 2017. Article: by David Leonhardt, The New York Times, February 7, 2017. Article: by Sam Frizell, TIME, January 17, 2017. Article: by Manu Raju, CNN, January 17, 2017. Publication: , Congressional Budget Office, January 17, 2017. Article: by Kelly Servick, Science, December 12, 2016. Article: by Jeffrey K. Shapiro and Jennifer D. Newberger, FDA Law Blog, December 8, 2016. Article: by Sheila Kaplan, STAT, November 27, 2016. Article: by David Reich and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 9, 2016. Article: by Alex Lazar, OpenSecrets.org, June 16, 2015. References Financial Disclosure: , United States House of Representatives, September 6, 2016. OpenSecrets: : Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Cornell University Law School. Senate Vote: Innate Immunotherapeutics: Innate Immunotherapeutics: GovTrack: Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Health and Human Services Secretary Confirmation, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, January 18, 2017 (Part 1) and January 24, 2017 (Part 2). Watch on CSPAN Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 47:45 Senator Patty Murray: I want to review the facts. You purchased stock in Innate Immunotherapeutics, a company working to develop new drugs, on four separate occasions between January 2015 and August 2016. You made the decision to purchase that stock, not a broker. Yes or no. Tom Price: That was a decision that I made, yes. Murray: You were offered an opportunity to purchase stock at a lower price than was available to the general public. Yes or no. Price: The initial purchase in January of 2015 was at the market price. The secondary purchase in June through August, September of 2016 was at a price that was available to individuals who were participating in a private-placement offering. Murray:It was lower than was available to the general public, correct? Price: I don’t know that it was. It was the same price that everybody paid for the private-placement offering. Murray: Well, Congressman Chris Collins, who sits on President-elect Trump’s transition team, is both an investor and a board member of the company. He was reportedly overheard just last week off the House floor, bragging about how he had made people millionaires from a stock tip. Congressman Price, in our meeting, you informed me that you made these purchases based on conversations with Representative Collins. Is that correct? Price: No. What I— Murray: Well, that is what you said to me in my office. Price: What I believe I said to you was that I learned of the company from Congressman Collins. Murray: What I recall our conversation was that you had a conversation with Collins and then decided to purchase the stock. Price: No, that’s not correct. Murray: Well, that is what I remember you hearing it—say—in my office. In that conversation, did Representative Collins tell you anything that could be considered “a stock tip?” Yes or no. Price: I don’t believe so, no. Murray: Well, if you’re telling me he gave you information about a company, you were offered shares in the company at prices not available to the public, you bought those shares, is that not a stock tip? Price: Well, that’s not what happened. What happened was that he mentioned—he talked about the company and the work that they were doing in trying to solve the challenge of progressive secondary multiple sclerosis which is a very debilitating disease and one that I— Murray: I’m well aware of that, but— Price: —had the opportunity to treat patients when I was in practice. Murray: I’m aware— Price: I studied the company for a period of time and felt that it had some significant merit and promise, and purchased the initial shares on the stock exchange itself. Murray: Congressman Price, I have very limited time. Let me go on. Your purchases occurred while the 21st Century Cures Act, which had several provisions that could impact drug developers like Innate Immunotherapeutics, was being negotiated, and, again, just days before you were notified to prepare for a final vote on the bill. Congressman, do you believe it is appropriate for a senior member of Congress actively involved in policymaking in the health sector to repeatedly personally invest in a drug company that could benefit from those actions? Yes or no. Price: Well, that's not what happened. 1:06:50 Senator Bernie Sanders: The United States of America is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right. Canada does it; every major country in Europe does it. Do you believe that healthcare is a right of all Americans, whether they’re rich or they’re poor? Should people, because they are Americans, be able to go to the doctor when they need to, be able to go into a hospital, because they are Americans? Tom Price: Yes. We’re a compassionate society— Sanders: No, we are not a compassionate society. In terms of our relationship to poor and working people, our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth; we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any other major country on earth; and half of our senior, older workers have nothing set aside for retirement. So I don’t think, compared to other countries, we are particularly compassionate. But my question is, in Canada, in other countries, all people have the right to get healthcare, do you believe we should move in that direction? Price: If you want to talk about other countries’ healthcare systems, there are consequences to the decisions that they’ve made just as there are consequences to the decision that we’ve made. I believe, and I look forward to working with you to make certain, that every single American has access to the highest-quality care and coverage that is possible. Sanders: “Has access to” does not mean that they are guaranteed healthcare. I have access to buying a ten-million-dollar home; I don’t have the money to do that. Price: And that’s why we believe it’s appropriate to put in place a system that gives every person the financial feasibility to be able to purchase the coverage that they want for themselves and for their family, again, not what the government forces them to buy. Sanders: Yeah, but if they don’t have any—well, it’s a long dissert. Thank you very much. Price: Thank you. 1:46:34 Senator Michael Bennet: So, I ask you, sir, are you aware that behind closed doors Republican leadership wrote into this bill that any replacement to the Affordable Care Act would be exempt from Senate rules that prohibit large increases to the deficit? Tom Price: As you may know, Senator, I stepped aside as chairman of the budget committee at the beginning of this year, and so I wasn’t involved in the writing of— Bennet: You have been the budget committee chairman during the rise of the Tea Party; you are a member of the Tea Party Caucus; you have said over and over again, as other people have, that the reason you’ve come to Washington is to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. I assume you’re very well aware of the vehicle that is being used to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is not— Price: Yes. Bennet: —some small piece of legislation. This is the Republican budget. Price: Yes, I'm aware of the bill. Yes. Bennet: But do you support a budget that increases the debt by $10 trillion? Price: No. What I support is an opportunity to use reconciliation to address the real challenges in the Affordable Care Act and to make certain that we put in place at the same time a provision that allows us to move the healthcare system in a much better direction— Bennet: Do you support the budget that was passed by the Senate Republicans— Price: I support— Bennet:—to repeal the Affordable Care Act that adds $10 trillion of debt to the budget deficit? Price: Well, the reconciliation bill is yet to come. I support the process that allows for and provides for the fiscal year ’17 reconciliation bill to come forward. 2:38:37 Senator Chris Murphy: But do you direct your broker around ethical guidelines? Do you tell him, for instance, not to invest in companies that are directly connected to your advocacy? Because it seems like a great deal: as a broker, he can just sit back, take a look— Tom Price: She. Murphy: —at the positions that you’re taking— Price: She. She can sit back. Murphy: She can—she can sit back— Price: Yeah. Murphy: —in this case—look at the legislative positions you’re taking, and invest in companies that she thinks are going to increase in value based on your legislative activities, and you can claim separation from that because you didn’t have a conversation. Price:Well, that’s a nefarious arrangement that I’m really astounded by. The fact of the matter is that I have had no conversations with my broker about any political activity at all, other than her— Murphy: Then why wouldn’t you tell her— Price: —other than her congratulating— Murphy: Why— Price: —me on my election. Murphy: But why wouldn’t you at least tell her, “Hey, listen; stay clear of any companies that are directly affected by my legislative work”? Price: Because the agreement that we have is that she provide a diversified portfolio, which is exactly what virtually every one of you have in your investment opportunities, and make certain that in order to protect one’s assets that there’s a diversified arrangement for purchase of stocks. I knew nothing about— Murphy: But you couldn’t have— Price: —those purchases. Murphy: But you couldn’t have a diversified portfolio while staying clear of the six companies that were directly affected by your work on an issue? Price: Well, as I said, I didn’t have any knowledge of those purchases. Murphy: Okay. 2:54:20 Senator Elizabeth Warren: One of the companies—it’s the company raised by Mr. Franken, Senator Franken—and that is Zimmer Biomet. They’re one of the world’s leading manufacturers of hip and knees, and they make more money if they can charge higher prices and sell more of their products. The company knows this, and so do the stock analysts. So on March 17, 2016 you purchased stock in Zimmer Biomet. Exactly six days after you bought the stock, on March 23, 2016, you introduced a bill in the House called the Hip Act that would require HHS secretary to suspend regulations affecting the payment for hip and knee replacements. Is that correct? Tom Price: I think the BPCI program to which I think you referred I’m a strong supporter of because it keeps the decision making in the— Warren: I’m not asking you about why you support it. I’m just asking, did you buy the stock, and then did you introduce a bill that would be helpful to the companies you just bought stock in? Price: The stock was bought by a direct—by a broker who was making those decisions. I wasn’t making those decisions. Warren: Okay, so you said you weren’t making those decisions. Let me just make sure that I understand. These are your stock trades, though. They are listed under your name, right? Price: They’re made on my behalf, yes. Warren:Okay. Was the stock purchased through an index fund? Price: I don't believe so. Warren: Through a passively managed mutual fund? Price: No. It’s a broker— Warren: Through an actively managed mutual fund? Price: It’s a broker-directed account. Warren: Through a blind trust? So, let’s just be clear. This is not just a stockbroker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork. This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to buy and sell. Price: Not true. Warren: So when you found out that— Price: That’s not true, Senator. Warren: Well, because you decide not to tell them—wink, wink, nod, nod—and we’re all just supposed to believe that? Price: It’s what members of this committee, it’s the manner of which— Warren: Well, I’m not one of them. Price: —members of this committee—Well, I understand that— Warren: So, let me just keep asking about this. Price: —but it’s important to appreciate that that’s the case. Warren:Then, I want to understand. When you found out that your broker had made this trade without your knowledge, did you reprimand her? Price: What—what I did was comply— Warren: Well, you found out that she made it. Price: What I did was comply— Warren: Did you fire her? Did you sell the stock? Price: What I did was comply with the rules of the House in an ethical and legal and— Warren: I didn’t ask whether or not the rules of the House— Price: —above-board manner— Warren: —let you do this. Price: —and in a transparent way. Warren: You know, all right. So, your periodic transaction report notes that you were notified of this trade on April 4, 2016. Did you take additional actions after that date to advance[audio cuts out] the company that you now own stock in? Price: I’m offended by the insinuation, Senator. Warren: Well, let me just read what you did. You may be offended, but here’s what you did. Congressional records show that after you were personally notified of this trade, which you said you didn’t know about in advance, that you added 23 out of your bill’s 24 co-sponsors; that also after you were notified of this stock transaction, you sent a letter to CMS, calling on them to cease all current and future planned mandatory initiatives under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; and just so there was no misunderstanding about who you were trying to help, you specifically mentioned— Unknown Speaker: Your two minutes are up, Senator Warren. Thank you. Warren: —hip and knee replacement. 2:58:20 Senator Johnny Isakson: This is very important for us to all understand under the disclosure rules that we have and the way it operates, any of us could make the mistakes that are being alleged. I’m sure Senator Franken had no idea that he owned part of Philip Morris when he made the statement he made about tobacco companies, but he has a WisdomTree Equity Income Fund investment, as disclosed in his disclosure, which owns Philip Morris. So, it’s entirely possible for any of us to have somebody make an investment on our behalf and us not know where that money is invested because of the very way it works. I don’t say that to, in any way, embarrass Mr. Franken but to make a point that any one of us who have mutual funds or investment managers or people who do that, it’s entirely possible for us not to know, and to try and imply that somebody’s being obfuscating something or in otherwise denying something that’s a fact, it’s just not the fair thing to do, and I just wanted to make that point. Senator Al Franken: This is different than mutual funds. Isakson: It’s an investment in Philip Morris. Unknown Speaker: Alright. Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Warren: And my question was about what do you do after he had notice. Unknown Speaker: Senator Warren, your time has been generously… Senator Kaine. 3:21:09 Senator Tim Kaine: Do you agree with the president-elect that the replacement for the Affordable Care Act must ensure that there is insurance for everybody? Tom Price: I have stated it here and— Kaine: Right. Price: —always that it’s incredibly important that we have a system that allows for every single American to have access to the kind of coverage that they need and desire. Kaine: And he’s— 3:31:52 Senator Patty Murray: You admitted to me in our meeting that you, in your own words, talked with Congressman Collins about Innate Immuno. This inspired you to you, in your own words, study the company and then purchase its stock, and you did so without a broker. Yes or no. Tom Price: No. Murray: Without a broker. Price: I did not. Murray: You told me that you did this one on your own without the broker. Yes? Price: No, I did it through a broker. I directed the broker to purchase the stock, but I did it through a broker. Murray: You directed the broker to purchase particularly that stock. Price: That's correct. Murray: Yeah. 3:34:42 Senator Patty Murray: Will you commit to ensuring all 18 FDA-approved methods of contraception continue to be covered so that women do not have to go back to paying extra costs for birth control? Tom Price: What I will commit to and assure is that women and all Americans need to know that we believe strongly that every single American ought to have access to the kind of coverage and care that they desire and want. 3:36:38 Senator Patty Murray: The Office of Minority Health was reauthorized as part of the ACA. So will you commit to maintaining and supporting this office and its work? Tom Price: I will commit to be certain that minorities in this country are treated in a way that makes certain—makes absolutely certain—that they have access to the highest-quality care. Murray: So you will not commit to the Office of Minority Health being maintained. Price: I think it’s important that we think about the patient at the center of all this. Our commitment, my commitment, to you is to make certain that minority patients and all patients in this country have access to the highest-quality care. Murray: But in particular—so you won’t commit to the Office of Minority— Price: We—Look, there are different ways to handle things. I can’t commit to you to do something in a department that one, I’m not in—I haven’t gotten it yet— Murray: But you will be. Price: —and— Murray: You will be, and— Price: Let me put forward a possible position that I might find myself in. The individuals within the department come to me and they say, we’ve got a great idea for being able to find greater efficiencies within the department itself, and it results in merging this agency and that agency— Murray: I think—I think that— Price: —and we’ll call it something else. Murray: Yeah. I—okay. Price: And we will address the issues of minority health— Murray: I just have a minute left, and I hear your answer. Price: —in a big, big way— Murray: You’re not committed, okay. Price: —and make certain that it is responsive to patients. Part 2 14:50 Senator Ron Wyden: Congressman Price owns stock in an Australian biomedical firm called Innate Immunotherapeutics. His first stock purchase came in 2015 after consulting Representative Chris Collins, the company’s top shareholder and a member of its board. In 2016 the congressman was invited to participate in a special stock sale called a private placement. The company offered the private placement to raise funds for testing on an experimental treatment it intends to put up for FDA approval. Through this private placement, the congressman increased his stake in the company more than 500 percent. He has said he was unaware he paid a price below market value. It is hard to see how this claim passes the smell test. Company filings with the Australia’s stock exchange clearly state that this specific private placement would be made at below-market prices. The treasury department handbook on private placement states, and I will quote, they “are offered only to sophisticated investors in a nonpublic manner.” The congressman also said last week he directed the stock purchase himself, departing from what he said was typical practice. Then, there’s the matter of what was omitted from the congressman’s notarized disclosures. The congressman’s stake in Innate is more than five times larger than the figure he reported to ethic’s officials when he became a nominee. He disclosed owning less than $50,000 of Innate stock. At the time the disclosure was filed, by my calculation, his shares had a value of more than $250,000. Today his stake is valued at more than a half million dollars. Based on the math, it appears that the private placement was excluded entirely from the congressman’s financial disclosure. This company’s fortunes could be affected directly by legislation and treaties that come before the Congress. 30:49 Senator Orrin Hatch: First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Tom Price: I do not. 51:36 Senator Ron Wyden: Will you commit to not implementing the order until the replacement plan is in place? Tom Price: As I mentioned, Senator, what I commit to you and what I commit to the American people is to keep patients the center of healthcare, and what that means to me is making certain that every single American has access to affordable health coverage that will provide the highest-quality healthcare that the world can provide. 1:24:34 Senator Richard Burr: Are you covered by the STOCK Act, legislation passed by Congress that requires you and every other member to publicly disclose all sales and purchases of assets within 30 days? Tom Price: Yes, sir. Burr: Now, you’ve been accused of not providing the committee of information related to your tax and financial records that were required of you. Are there any records you have been asked to provide that you have refused to provide? Price: None whatsoever. Burr: So all of your records are in. Price: Absolutely. Burr: Now, I’ve got to ask you, does it trouble you at all that as a nominee to serve in this administration that some want to hold you to a different standard than you as a member of Congress, and I might say the same standard that they currently buy and sell and trade assets on? Does it burn you that they want to hold you to a different standard now that you’re a nominee than they are as a member? Price: Well, I—we know what’s going on here. Burr: Oh, we do. Price: I mean— Burr: We do. Price: It’s—and I understand. And as my wife tells me, I volunteered for this, so… 1:26:49 Senator Richard Burr: As the nominee and hopefully—and I think you will be—the secretary of HHS, what are the main goals of an Obamacare replacement plan? Tom Price: Main goals, as I mentioned, are outlined in those principles, that is imperative that we have a system that’s accessible for every single American; that’s affordable for every single American; that is incentivizes and provides the highest-quality healthcare that the world knows; and provides choices to patients so that they’re the ones selecting who’s treating them, when, where, and the like. So it’s complicated to do, but it’s pretty simple stuff. 1:34:58 Senator Johnny Isakson: Any one of us can take a financial disclosure—and there’s something called desperate impact, where you take two facts—one over here and one over there—to make a wrong. Any one of us could do it to disrupt or misdirect people’s thoughts on somebody. It’s been happening to you a lot because people have taken things that you have disclosed and tried to extrapolate some evil that would keep you from being secretary of HHS when, in fact, it shouldn’t be true. For example, if you go to Senator Wyden’s annual report, he owns an interest in BlackRock Floating Rate Income Fund. The major holding of that fund is Valeant Pharmaceuticals. They’re the people we jumped all over for 2700 percent increases last year in pharmaceutical products. But we’re not accusing the ranking member of being for raising pharmaceutical prices, but you could take that extrapolation out of that and then indict somebody and accuse them. Is that not true? 1:51:30 Senator Michael Bennet: I wonder whether you also believe that it’s essential that there be a floor for insurance providers. You know, some of the things that the Affordable Care Act require for coverage include outpatient care; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; prescription drugs; rehab services; lab services; preventative care, such as birth control and mammograms; pediatric services, like vaccines; routine dental exams for children younger than 19. I’m not going to ask you to go through each one of those, but directionally, are we headed to a world where people in rural America have to settle for coverage for catastrophic care; are we headed to a place where there is regulation of insurance providers that say if you are going to be an insurance market, you need—particularly if we’re in a world where your son had crossed state lines —there has to be a floor of the services you’re willing to pay for? Tom Price: I think there has to be absolutely credible coverage, and I think that it’s important that the coverage—that individuals ought to be able to purchase this coverage that they want. 1:56:45 Senator Pat Toomey: When we talk about repeal, sometimes I hear people say, well, we’ve got to keep coverage of pre-existing conditions because, you know, we’ve got to keep that. And when I hear that, I think that we’re missing something here, and here’s what I’m getting at. There’s obviously a number of Americans who suffer from chronic, expensive healthcare needs. They’ve had these conditions sometimes all their lives, sometimes for some other period of time. And for many of them the proper care for those conditions is unaffordable. I think we agree that we want to make sure those people get the healthcare they need. Now, one way to force it is to force insurance companies to provide health-insurance coverage for someone as soon as they show up, regardless of what condition they have, which is kind of like asking the property casualty company to rebuild the house after it’s burned down. But that’s only one way to deal with this, and so am I correct: is it your view that there are other perhaps more effective ways—since, after all, Obamacare’s in a collapse—to make sure that people with these pre-existing chronic conditions get the healthcare that they need at an affordable price without necessarily having the guaranteed-issue mandate in the general population? Tom Price: I think there are other options, and I think it’s important, again, to appreciate that the position that we currently find ourselves in, with policy in this nation, is that those folks, in a very short period of time, are going to have nothing because of the collapse of the market. 2:18:05 Tom Price: Every single individual ought to be able to have access to coverage. 2:29:45 Senator Tim Scott: My last question has to do with the employer-sponsored healthcare system that we’re so accustomed to in this country, that provides about 175 million Americans with their insurance. In my home state of South Carolina, of course, we have about two and a half million people covered by their employer coverage. If confirmed as HHS secretary, how would you support American employers in their effort to provide effective family health coverage in a consistent and affordable manner? Said differently, there’s been some conversation about looking for ways to decouple having health insurance through your employer. Tom Price: I think the employer system has been absolutely a remarkable success in allowing individuals to gain coverage that they otherwise might not gain. I think that preserving the employer system is imperative. That being said, I think that there may be ways in which individual employers—I’ve heard from employers who say, if you just give me an opportunity to provide my employee the kind of resources so that he or she is able to select the coverage that they want, then that makes more sense to them. And if that works from a voluntary standpoint for employers and for employees, then it may be something to look at. Scott: That would be more like the HRA approach where— Price: Exactly. Scott: —employer funds an account, and the employee chooses the health insurance, not necessarily under the umbrella of the employer specifically. Price: Exactly. And gains the same tax benefit. 2:58:00 Tom Price: What I’m for is making certain, again, that the Medicaid population has access to the highest-quality care possible, and we’ll do everything to improve that because right now so many in the Medicaid population don’t have access to the highest-quality care. 3:20:50 Tom Price: Our goal is to make certain that seniors have access to the highest-quality healthcare possible at an affordable price. Senator Bob Menendez: Well, access without the ability to afford it, and I’ll end on this— Price: That's what I said, affordable price. 3:28:45 Senator Sherrod Brown: If you and he are working together, are you going to suggest to him that we find a way in repeal and replace to make sure there is guaranteed healthcare for our nation’s veterans? Tom Price: Well, I think it’s vital, again, as I’ve mentioned before, that every single American have access to affordable coverage that’s of high quality, and that’s our goal, and that’s our commitment. 3:30:52 [regarding a disabled child coverd by Medicaid] Tom Price: We are absolutely committed to making certain that that child and every other child and every other individual in this nation has access to the highest-quality care possible. Senator Bob Casey Jr.: Okay, so not an access—he will have the medical care that he has right now or better—if you can come up with a better level of care, that’s fine—but he will have at least the coverage of Medicaid and all that that entails that he has right now. And that’s either a yes or no; that’s not— Price: No, it’s not a yes or no because the fact of the matter is that in order for the current law to change, you all have to change it— Casey: No, but here’s— Price: —and if I’m given the privilege of leading at the Department of Health and Human Services— Casey: Here’s why it’s yes— Price: and I respond to— Casey: You should stop talking around this. You have led the fight in the House, backed up by Speaker Ryan, for years— Price: To improve Medicaid. Casey: —to block grant Medicaid, okay? Price: To improve Medicaid. Casey: To block grant Medicaid. What that means is, states will have to decide whether or not this child gets the Medicaid that he deserves. That’s what happens. So you push it back to the states and hope it works out… Cover Art Design by

CD144: Trump’s War Manufacturers

12 februari 2017 | 170 min

Defense Secretary General James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo have been confirmed by the Senate and are now the most powerful influencers of foreign policy in the Trump Administration. In this episode, we examine their worldviews by investigating their pre-Trump Administration experience as corporate titans and hearing critical highlights from their confirmation hearings. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes South China Sea Map Image Credit: Israeli Settlements and Outposts Image Credit: Additional Reading Article: by the Associated Press, The New York Times, February 7, 2017. by Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, February 4, 2017. Article: by Steve Horn, Desmog, February 2, 2017. Article: by Dominic Dudley, Forbes, January 30, 2017. Article: , Financial Tribune, January 30, 2017. Article: by Angela Dewan and Emily Smith, CNN, January 30, 2017. Article: by Helen Clark, Asia Times, January 23, 2017. Document: , U.S. Senate, January 18, 2017. Op-Ed: by Medea Benjamin, The Guardian, January 9, 2017. Article: by Missy Ryan and Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, January 9, 2017. Document: , Office of the Director of National Intelligence, January 6, 2017. Article: by Dan Alexander, Forbes, January 4, 2017. Article: by Jennifer Williams and Javier Zarracina, Vox, December 30, 2016. Article: by Jonathan Ferziger and Michael Arnold, Bloomberg, December 26, 2016. Article: by Adam Taylor, The Washington Post, December 13, 2016. Article: by Steve Coll, The New Yorker, December 11, 2016. Article: by Avi Asher-Schapiro, International Business Times, November 18, 2016. Article: by Kaveh Waddell, The Atlantic, November 18, 2016. Article: by James Carden, The Nation, September 19, 2016. Fact Sheet: , U.S. Department of State, September 6, 2016. Op-Ed: by Mike Pompeo, Fox News Opinion, July 14, 2016. Article: by Jason Breslow, PBS, May 17, 2016. Op-Ed: by Mike Pompeo, National Review, December 21, 2015. Congressional Bill: by Mike Pompeo, House of Representatives, December 16, 2015. Article: , The Voice Of Vietnam, November 17, 2015. Article: by Derek Watkins, The New York Times, October 27, 2015. Article: by Tim Dickinson, RollingStone, September 24, 2014. Article: , BBC, February 7, 2014. Op-Ed: by Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton, The Washington Post, September 3, 2013. Congressional Bill: by Mike Pompeo, House of Representatives, April 18, 2012. Op-Ed: by Rep. Mike Pompeo, Politico, February 2, 2012. Article: by Asjylyn Loder and David Evans, Bloomberg, October 3, 2011. Congressional Bill: by Mike Pompeo, House of Representatives, September 12, 2011. Article: by Lydia Polgreen, The New York Times, February 2, 2009. Article: by William Dowell, Time, November 13, 2000. References Opensecrets: Opensecrets: , GovTrack , The National WWII Museum , Gazprom Sound Clip Sources Interview: , Democracy Now, March 2007. Presidential Speech: , January 17, 1961. News Segment: , CNN, December 3, 2016. Video: , Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 22, 2016. Video: , NBC News, October 19, 2016. Hearing: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Confirmation, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 11, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 54:17 Rex Tillerson: We are the only global super power with the means and the moral compass capable of shaping the world for good. If we do not lead, we risk plunging the world deeper into confusion and danger. 1:11:18 Senator Ben Cardin: So, what would you have done, after we were surprised by what they did in taking over Crimea, what should the U.S. leadership had done in response to that, that we didn’t do? Rex Tillerson: I would have recommended that the Ukraine take all of its military assets it had available, put them on that eastern border, provide those assets with defensive weapons that are necessary just to defend themselves, announce that the U.S. is going to provide them intelligence and that either NATO or U.S. will provide air surveillance over that border to monitor any movements. Cardin:So, your recommendation would do a more robust supply of military? Tillerson: Yes, sir. 1:12:16 Senator Ben Cardin: Our NATO partners, particularly in the Baltics and Poland, are very concerned about Russian aggression. NATO has deployed troops in this region in order to show Russia that Article 5 means something. I take it you support that type of action. Rex Tillerson: Yes, I do. That is the type of response that Russia expects. If Russia acts with force—taking of Crimea was an act of force. They didn’t just volunteer themselves. So that required a proportional show of force to indicate to Russia that there’ll be no more taking of territory. 1:15:45 Senator Ben Cardin: We’re a part of COP21. Do you agree that the United States should continue in international leadership on climate-change issues with the international community? Rex Tillerson: I think it’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table on the conversations around how to address threats of climate change, which do require a global response. No one country’s going to solve this alone. 1:27:35 Senator Bob Menendez: Do you believe it is in the national interest of the United States to continue to support international laws and norms that were established after World War II? Rex Tillerson: Yes, sir. Menendez: Do you believe that the international order includes respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign countries and the inviability of their borders? Tillerson: Yes, sir. Menendez: Did Russia violate this international order when it forcefully annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine? Tillerson: Yes, it did.Menendez: Did Russia’s continuing occupation of foreign countries violate international laws and norms? Tillerson: I’m not sure which specific countries you’re referring to. Menendez: Well, the annexation of Crimea— Tillerson: Yes, sir. Menendez: —Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, just to mention a few. Tillerson: Yes, sir. Menendez: Does Russia and Syria’s targeted bombing campaign in Aleppo, on hospitals, for example, violate this international order? Tillerson: Yes. That is not acceptable behavior. 1:52:23 Senator Jeanne Shaheen: You were unwilling to agree with Senator Rubio’s characterization of Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, and you point out in your statement that Russia has disregarded American interests. I would suggest, as I think has been brought out in later testimony, that it not only has disregarded American interests but international norms and humanitarian interests. The State Department has described Russia as having an authoritarian political system dominated by President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, Freedom House currently puts Russia in a category of countries like Iran, with very restricted political rights ruled by one part or military dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. Do you agree with that characterization of Russia and Vladimir Putin? Rex Tillerson:I would have no reason to take exception. 2:08:15 Senator Jeff Flake: How can we refashion some of our policies to nudge countries toward democracy that need nudging, or that punished countries weren't deemed spent, or encourage cooperation with us on security measures or humanitarian measures? Rex Tillerson: Well, certainly, the use of important USAID assistance really falls in kind of two broad areas: a disaster relief addressing imminent situations on the ground, where there's starvation or the result of storms or as result of conflict, providing assistance to relieve the immediate suffering. That is an important part of USAID. Over the past few years, in looking at the balance of that against, what I would call, development assistance, which is designed to create change, which, hopefully, becomes a sustainable change, that, regrettably, the disaster-assistance part of that budget has grown, and that means there's less available for development. Other important ways in which we can provide the assistance, though, are through other mechanisms, such as millennial challenge corporation for those countries that qualify. That's a different model. And so I think in terms of what is the issue we're trying to address, that then conditions how do we put obligations on the country then to modify behaviors, whether it's to take steps to reduce corruption, improve the strength of governments and their own institutional capacity to manage their affairs. Where I have seen a good progress is when assistance was put into the country with some requirement that, for instance, they modify or streamline their permitting process. One of the ways to begin to reduce corruption is to remove the complexities of how people are able to carry out their activities. The more steps you have in the process, the more opportunities there are for people to be taking something out of it or adding a cost to it. 2:10:24 Rex Tillerson: So, I think where we can tie our assistance to obligations, it’s important that we do so. 2:16:25 Rex Tillerson: As to how I would deal with the past history I have in my prior position with ExxonMobil, I've made clear in my disclosures, and I think in answers to questions that have been posed, that obviously there's a statutory recusal period, which I will adhere to, on any matters that might come before the State Department that deal directly and specifically with ExxonMobil. Beyond that, though, in terms of broader issues dealing with the fact that it might involve the oil and natural gas industry itself, the scope of that is such that I would not expect to have to recuse myself. Part 2 08:38 Senator Tim Kaine: You were with the company for nearly 42 years? Rex Tillerson: That is correct. Kaine: And for the majority of your time you were with the company in an executive and management position? Tillerson: Approximately half the time. Kaine: And you became CEO in 2006? Tillerson: Correct. Kaine:So, I’m not asking you on behalf of ExxonMobil—you’ve resigned from ExxonMobil. I'm asking you whether those allegations about ExxonMobil's knowledge of climate science and decision to fund and promote a view contrary to its awareness of the science, whether those allegations are true or false. Tillerson: The question would have to be put to ExxonMobil. Kaine: And let me ask you: do you lack the knowledge to answer my question, or are you refusing to answer my question? Tillerson: A little of both. 36:00 Rex Tillerson: We've had two competing priorities in Syria under this administration: Bashar al-Assad must go and the defeat of ISIS. And the truth of the matter is, carrying both of those out simultaneously is extremely difficult because at times they conflict with one another. The clear priority is to defeat ISIS. We defeat ISIS we, at least, create some level of stability in Syria which then lets us deal with the next priority of what is going to be the exit of Bashar Assad, but importantly, before we decide that is in fact what needs to happen, we have to answer the question, what comes next? What is going to be the government structure in Syria, and can we have any influence over that or not? 53:10 Senator Edward Markey: Do you believe that it should be a priority of the United States to work with other countries in the world to find climate-change solutions to that problem? Rex Tillerson: I think it's important for America to remain engaged in those discussions so that we are at the table, expressing a view, and understanding what the impacts may be on the American people and American competitiveness. 1:13:38 Senator Jeff Merkley: There are three individuals who were involved in the Trump campaign—Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and Carter Page—who, public reports, have been involved in dialogue with Russia, with the goal of finding a common strategy, with Russia believing that Trump would be better on Syria and Ukraine policy and Trump believing that Russia could help defeat Hillary Clinton. Now these reports have not been substantiated, I'm sure much more will come on them, but in theory, how do you feel about a U.S. candidate turning to a foreign country to essentially find another partner in defeating another opponent in a U.S. presidential election? Rex Tillerson: That would not comport with our democratic process. 1:16:35 Rex Tillerson: The defeat of ISIS as an ideology, in other words, other than the battlefield, is going to require advanced capabilities in our own communication tools in terms of disrupting their communication to develop their network, more importantly to further their ideology. This means getting into the Internet airspace and putting forth different ideas and disrupting their delivery of ideas to people who are persuaded to join them. 1:23:42 Senator John Barrasso: We have had a situation where some of the programs in place have not really supported all of the above energy, and we've seen where the World Bank has blocked funding for coal-fired power plants which would help bring light and other opportunities to a number of countries in Africa, and I wonder if you could comment on the need to use all of the sources of energy to help people who are living in poverty and without power. Rex Tillerson:Well, I think, and I know you touched on it, but nothing lifts people out of poverty quicker than electricity. That's just a fact. You give people light, you give them the ability to refrigerate food, medicine—it changes their entire quality of life. They no longer cook on animal dung and wood cooking in their homes, so health issues—their health improves. I think it's very important that we use wisely the American people's dollars as we support these programs, and that means whatever is the most efficient, effective way to deliver electricity to these areas that don't have it, that should be the choice, and that is the wisest use of American dollars. 1:27:30 Senator Chris Coons: Do you see RT as a Russian propaganda outlet, and how would you use and lead the resources of the State Department to counter Russian propaganda and to push back on this effort to change the rules of the world order? Rex Tillerson: Well, as you point out, utilizing the opportunity to communicate to the people of Russia through mechanisms that were successful in the past—Radio Free Europe—and utilizing those type of sources as well as providing information on the Internet to the extent people can access Internet so that they have availability to the facts, the facts, as they exist, to the alternative reporting of events that are presented through the largely controlled media outlets inside of Moscow. That is an important way in which to, at least, begin to inform the Russian people as to what the realities are in the world, and it is an important tool. It should be utilized. Part 3 08:28 Senator Cory Booker: You did characterize the Obama administration's decisions as weakness, even though you're saying that you wouldn't necessarily do something different. Rex Tillerson: In that instance, I would've done something different. Booker: Military force. Tillerson:A show of force at the border of the country that had been already had territory taken from them. Booker: American military force, in this case? Tillerson: No, I indicated Ukrainian military force, supported by the U.S. providing them with capable defensive weapons. If that's not seen across the border, then it's not a show of force. 55:32 Rex Tillerson: I had a great 41-and-a-half-year career, and I was truly blessed, enjoyed every minute of it. That part of my life's over. I've been humbled and honored with the opportunity to now serve my country—never thought I would have an opportunity to serve in this way—and so when I made the decision to say yes to President-elect Trump when he asked me to do this, the first step I took was to retain my own outside counsel, to begin the process, and the only guidance I gave them is I must have a complete and clear, clean break from all of my connections to ExxonMobil—not even the appearance—and whatever is required for us to achieve that, get that in place. I am appreciative that the ExxonMobil Corporation, whoever represented by their own counsel, and the ExxonMobil board were willing to work with me to achieve that as well. It was their objective, too. And in the end, if that required me to walk away from some things, that's fine, whatever was necessary to achieve that. And again, told people, I don't even want the appearance that there's any connection to myself and the future fortunes, up or down, of the ExxonMobil Corporation. 1:04:25 Rex Tillerson: We've got to step back and look at all of China's activities, and the one you mention now—the island-building in the South China Sea, the declaration of control of airspace in waters over the Senkaku Islands with Japan—both of those are illegal actions. They're taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China's. The island-building in the South China Sea itself, in many respects, in my view, building islands and then putting military assets on those island is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea. It's taking of territory that others lay claim to. The U.S. has never taken a side in the issues, but what we have advocated for is, look, that's a disputed area, there are international processes for dealing with that, and China should respect those international processes. As you mentioned, some of their actions have already been challenged at the courts in The Hague, and they were found to be in violation. 1:06:00 Rex Tillerson: But you’ve got five trillion dollars of economic trade goes through those waters every day, and this is a threat to the entire global economy if China’s allowed to somehow dictate the terms of passage through these waters. 1:06:23 Rex Tillerson: We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed. 1:45:10 Senator Chris Murphy: Do you believe that the Iraq war—not the conduct of the war, but the war itself—was a mistake? Rex Tillerson: I think I indicated in response—I believe it was to Senator Paul's question—that I think our motives were commendable, but we did not achieve the objectives there: we did not achieve greater stability, we did not achieve improved national security for the United States of America. And that's just, the events have borne that out. And at the time, I held the same view, that I was concerned just as I was concerned before the decisions were made to go into Libya and change the leadership there. It's not that I endorse that leadership, but that leadership had the place somewhat stable with a lot of bad actors locked up in prison. Now, all those bad actors are running around the world. Murphy: Just, just— Tillerson: So it's the question of—it isn't a question that our ultimate goal has to be to change that type of oppressive leadership. It has to be, though, that we know what is coming after, or we have a high confidence that we can control what comes after or influence it, and it will be better than what we just took out. Murphy: But which—in this case, which motives are you referring to that were commendable? Tillerson:I think the concerns were that Saddam Hussein represented a significant threat to stability in that part of the world and to the United States directly. 1:47:00 Senator Chris Murphy: One last question, going back to Russia. You’ve said in earlier—answered an earlier question that you wouldn't commit today to the continuation of sanctions against the Russians for their involvement in the U.S. presidential election, but could you make a commitment to us today that if you deem sanctions to be the inappropriate policy, that you will recommend and argue for a substitute response for the interference in U.S. elections? Will you argue for a U.S. response, even if you don't believe sanctions is the right policy? Rex Tillerson: Yes. Yes, and all I've read is, again, the unclassified portions, but it is troubling. And if there's additional information that indicates the level of interference, it deserves a response. 2:04:25 Senator John Barrasso: The last thing I wanted to get to was the issue of energy as a master resource in the way that Putin uses it as a political weapon. And one of the things we're seeing now is this Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the pipeline between Russia and Germany that the United States has been working closely with our European partners, with respect to that. And this is something that we've had bipartisan support on—looking across the aisle: Senator Shaheen, Senator Murphy have signed a letter with me and with Senator Risch and Senator Rubio, Senator Johnson—because of our concern with the ability of this pipeline to deliver more energy and make Europe more dependent upon Russia for energy. It also bypasses Ukraine and impacts the Ukrainian economy as well when it runs directly from Russia under the Baltic Sea directly into Germany. Several European countries have raised the concerns that this pipeline would undermine sanctions on Russia, increase Russia's political leverage over Eastern Europe, and can you give us your assessment of something of which there's actually a lot of bipartisan agreement on this panel with regard to? Rex Tillerson: Well, energy is vital to every economy the world over, so it can be used as a powerful tool to influence, kind of tip the balance of the table in one party's direction or the other. So it is important that we are watching and paying attention to when this balance is upset. Now, the greatest response the United States can give to that threat is the development of our own natural resources. The country’s blessed with enormous natural resources of both oil and natural gas, and I know the Congress took action here in the recent past to approve the export of crude oil. We now have exports of liquefied natural gas. The more U.S. supply, which comes from a stable country that lives by our values, we can provide optionality to countries so that they cannot be held captive to a single source or to a dominant source. 2:17:45 Senator Rob Portman: I want to talk to you a little about your views on Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. One important issue for me, as you know, is this issue of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement—the so-called BDS movement—which is a global movement targeting Israel. I've been concerned about this for a while, introduced some legislation on it. In fact, Ben Cardin and I have not just introduced but passed legislation in this regard to try to push back against the BDS forces. Recently—of course with the consent of the Obama administration—the U.N. Security Council passed this resolution condemning the settlements and demanding Israel cease all activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem, is the way the resolution reads. I think this will, no doubt, galvanize additional BDS activity. And so here's my question to you: would you make it a priority to counter Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions efforts against Israel, make sure Israel is not held to a double standard but instead treated as a normal member of the international community? Rex Tillerson: Yes, I would. Portman: Any preliminary thoughts as to how you would do that? Tillerson: Well, I think, just by raising it in our interactions with countries that do put in place provisions that boycott whatever elements of activity or business with Israel in their country, that we begin by highlighting that we oppose that and just expressing that view, and that those countries need to understand that does shade our view of them as well, then. One of the things that would, I think, help change the dynamic, obviously, would be if there were a change in the dynamic regionally. Today, because of Iran and the threat that Iran poses, we now find that Israel, the U.S., and the Arab neighbors in the region all share the same enemy, and this give us an opportunity to discuss things that previously, I think, could not have been discussed. 2:26:45 Senator Jeff Merkley: We are also viewing, often, climate change as a national-security issue, and since you believe—so I wanted to ask, do you see it as a national-security issue? Rex Tillerson: I don’t see it as the imminent national-security threat that, perhaps, others do. 2:27:30 Rex Tillerson: The facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what’s happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite. Now the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive, and there are many reports out there that we are unable, yet, to connect specific events to climate change alone. 2:30:26 Senator Jeff Merkley: We also saw that leading up to Paris, China has committed to producing as much renewable power as our entire electricity production in the United States, and we’ve seen India, now, talking about how to shift providing electricity to 300 million people who don’t have it and doing it primarily, or shifting from primarily a coal strategy to primarily a renewable-energy strategy. So we’re seeing big countries with big populations that have far smaller carbon footprints than the United States stepping up, and shouldn’t we step up as well? Rex Tillerson: I think the United States has stepped up. As I indicated earlier, I think the United States has a record over the last 20 years, of which it can be quite proud. 3:13:55 Rex Tillerson: I think the president-elect’s made clear in his views, that his whole objective of his campaign and putting America first, that he is not going to support anything that would put U.S. industry in any particular sector at a disadvantage to its competitors outside of the U.S., whether it’s automobile manufacturing or steel making or the oil and gas industry. 3:32:57 Rex Tillerson: I have never supported energy independence; I have supported energy security. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, January 12, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Timestamps & Transcripts 20:15 Senator John McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We’ve not only put America first, but we’ve done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. It’s the global striking power of America’s armed forces that must deter or thwart their ambitions. Too many Americans, too many Americans seem to have forgotten this in recent years. Too many have forgotten that our world order is not self-sustaining. Too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. In short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters—having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and, at times, using it. Fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that America is weak and distracted, and that has only emboldened our adversaries to challenge the current world order. The threat posed by violent Islamic extremism continues to metastasize across Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and but for those who remain vigilant, our homeland. It should now be clear that we will be engaged in a global conflict of varying scope and intensity for the foreseeable future; believing otherwise is wishful thinking. So, if confirmed, General Mattis, you would lead a military at war. You of all people appreciate what that means and what it demands. At the same time, our central challenge in the Middle East is not ISIL, as grave a threat as that is. It is a breakdown of regional order in which nearly every state is a battlefield for conflict, a combatant, or both. ISIL is a symptom of this disorder. 51:20 Senator John McCain: You are a distinguished student of history, and, as we are all aware, that following World War II, a world order was established which has held for, basically, the last 70 years. Do you believe that that world order is now under more strain than it’s ever been? James Mattis: I think it’s under the biggest attack since World War II, sir, and that’s from Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea. McCain: And that would argue for us making sure we’re adequately prepared to meet these challenges. Mattis:I think deterrence is critical right now, sir. Absolutely. And that requires the strongest military. McCain: Do you think we have a strong-enough military today in order to achieve that goal? Mattis: No, sir. 1:13:08 Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Today, for the first time since the fall of Communism, American troops arrived in Poland as part of the European Reassurance Initiative. How important is it for us to continue these initiatives to reassure our European allies that we will continue to support them, and how concerned are you that some of President-elect Trump’s statements with respect to continuing to support NATO, to support our allies in Europe, has undermined our ability to continue this initiative, and will you support the ERI continuing, as secretary of defense? James Mattis: Senator, I do support ERI. NATO, from my perspective, having served once as a NATO supreme allied commander, is the most successful military alliance probably in modern-world history, maybe ever, and was put together, as you know, by the “greatest generation” coming home from a war to defend Europe against Soviet incursion by their military. Yet the first time it went to war was when this town and New York City were attacked. That’s the first time NATO went into combat. So my view is that nations with allies thrive, and nations without allies don’t, and so I would see us maintaining the strongest-possible relationship with NATO. 1:51:05 Senator Joni Ernst: I do believe we need to look at other regions around the globe, and we cannot turn a blind eye to ISIS in regions outside of the Middle East, such as in Southeast Asia. There are many news reports that have showed those areas are very active, and reports from last year, I noted over 57 Philippine government forces have been killed in battles linked with ISIS groups. There was also an attempted U.S. Embassy bombing in Manila and many other ISIS-claimed attacks throughout that region. Secretary Carter did agree with my assessment on ISIS in Southeast Asia, and President Obama was made well aware of my concerns; however, we have yet to develop a strategy to combat ISIS, especially in those regions where we are not focusing. How should our new administration address the rising threat of ISIS in Southeast Asia, and will you commit to working with me on this, sir? James Mattis: Absolutely, Senator. The way we do this, I think we have to deliver a very hard blow against ISIS in the Middle East so that there’s no sense of invulnerability or invincibility there. There’s got to be a military defeat of them there, but it must, as you point out, be a much broader approach. This requires an integrated strategy so you don’t squeeze them in one place and then they develop in another and we really are right back to square one. We’ve got to have an integrated strategy on this, and it’s got to be one that goes after the recruiting and their fundraising, as well as delivering a military blow against them in the Middle East, and that way you slow down this growth and start rolling it back by, with, and through allies. 2:08:55 Senator Dan Sullivan: In the Arctic, Russia has filled a vacuum left by the U.S., and, as you know, General, just in the past few years the buildup in the Arctic by the Russians has been quite dramatic: a new Arctic command; four new Arctic brigades; 14 operational air fields; 16 deep-water ports; 40 icebreakers, with 13 more on the way, three nuclear powered; huge new land claims in the Arctic for massive oil and gas reserves; the most long-range air patrols with Bear bombers since the Cold War; a snap military exercise in 2015 that included 45,000 troops, 3,400 military vehicles, 41 ships, 15 submarines, and 110 aircraft. What is the effect on the United States not being actively engaged in the Arctic, as you mention in your article? James Mattis: Senator, I think that America has global responsibilities, and it’s not to our advantage to leave any of those areas of the world absent from our efforts. Sullivan: What do you think Russia’s trying to achieve in the Arctic with that massive military buildup? Mattis: I don’t know. I believe, however, that we are going to have to figure it out and make certain that we’re not seeing an expansion of these efforts to dominate, what have been up until now, part of the international commons. Sullivan: What role would you see of increased U.S. presence and involvement with regard to our role in the Arctic versus what the Russians are doing? Mattis: Senator, with the new sea routes of communication that are opening up, as the sea ice retreats, I think we’re going to have to recognize this is an active area, whether it be for search and rescue, for patrolling, maintain sovereignty up along our Alaska coastline, that sort of thing. 2:47:17 Senator Lindsey Graham: Are we going to give the world a veto of what we do? James Mattis: I would never give the world a veto. 3:02:12 Senator Ben Sasse: You have commented, General, on the political objectives must be clearly defined to ensure military success in Iraq and Syria. How will your recommendations for pursuing Iraq and Syria differ from the Obama administration? James Mattis: Senator, I think the most important thing is to know when you go into a shooting war how you want it to end, and by setting out the political conditions that you’re out to achieve up front and come into agreement on that in the national security team and with the Congress, then you give it full resourcing to get there as rapidly as possible. And I think it’s getting there as rapidly as possible is probably where it would differ from the current administration where it would be a more accelerated campaign from what the president-elect has already called for. Hearing: , Senate Intelligence Committee, January 12, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Timestamps & Transcripts 57:28 Senator Martin Heinrich: You’ve been supportive of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the past, saying, back in September of 2014, that President Obama has continually refused to take the war on radical Islamic terrorism seriously and cited ending our interrogation program in 2009 as an example. Can you commit to this committee that under current law, which limits interrogation to the Army Field Manual, that you will comply with that law and that the CIA is out of the enhanced-interrogation business? Mike Pompeo: Yes. You have my full commitment to that, Senator Heinrich. Panel: , Foreign Policy Initiative Forum, December 3, 2014. Protest Guide Cover Art Design by

CD143: Trump’s Law Enforcers

23 januari 2017 | 119 min

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are the most powerful domestic law enforcement officers in the United States government. In this episode, hear critical highlights from the confirmation hearings of President Trump's nominees for those jobs: Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and General John Kelly for Secretary of DHS. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on the Judicary, January 10, 2017 Watch on C-SPAN Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 1:12:10 Senator Chuck Grassley: During the course of the presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive emails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation. You weren’t alone in that criticism—I was certainly critical in the same way, as were millions of Americans, on those matters—but now you’ve been nominated to serve as Attorney General. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concern about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns? Jeff Sessions Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign with regard to Secretary Clinton, and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question. I’ve given that thought. I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton that were raised during the campaign or could be otherwise connected to it. Sen. Grassley: Okay. I think it’s—let me emphasize, then, with a followup question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton email investigation, any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any. Sessions: Yes 1:22:55 Senator Diane Feinstein: Appearing on the TV show 60 Minutes, the president-elect said that the issue of same-sex marriage was “already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. It’s done, and I’m fine with that.” Do you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is settled law? Jeff Sessions: Supreme Court has ruled on that. The dissents dissented vigorously, but it was five to four, and five justices on the Supreme Court—a majority of the court—have established the definition of marriage for the entire United States of America, and I will follow that decision. 1:30:05 Senator Orrin Hatch: In the 108th Congress, you introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, expressing the sense of the Congress that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States. It passed the Senate unanimously—it pleased it, too. In fact, it is the only resolution on this subject ever passed by either the Senate or the House. Now, Senator Sessions, with your permission I want to share with you that resolution adopted last year by the Utah legislature outlining why pornography should be viewed as a public health problem, as well as some of the latest research into the harms of obscenity. Is it still your view that federal laws prohibiting adult obscenity should be vigorously enhanced? Jeff Sessions: Mr. Chairman, those laws are clear, and they are being prosecuted today and should be—continue to be effectively and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate. Sen. Hatch: In making this a priority for the Justice Department, would you consider reestablishing a specific unit dedicated to prosecuting this category of crime? Sessions: So, that unit has been disbanded—I’m not sure I knew that, but it was a part of the Department of Justice for a long time, and I would consider that. 1:49:40 Senator Patrick Leahy: Do you agree with the president-elect, the United States can or should deny entry to all members of a particular religion? Jeff Sessions: Senator Leahy, I believe the president-elect has, subsequent to that statement, made clear that he believes the focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have history of terrorism, and he’s also indicated that his policy, and what he suggests, is strong vetting of people from those countries before they’re admitted to the United States. 1:55:35 Senator Lindsey Graham: What’s your view of Obama’s administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, or poker gambling? Jeff Sessions: Senator Graham, I was shocked at the memorandum, I guess the enforcement memorandum, that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened, and it seemed to me to be an unusual— Graham: Would you revisit it? Sessions: I would revisit it, and I would make a decision about it based on careful study. 2:12:55 Senator Dick Durbin: Senator Graham asked this question, and I listened to your answer when he asked you what would happen to those 800,000 currently protected by President Obama’s executive order, known as DACA, who cannot be deported for two years—it’s renewable—and can work for two years, and you said, let Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. You opposed the only bipartisan effort that we’ve had on the Senate floor in modern memory. And what’s going to happen to those 800,000, if you revoke that order and they are subject to deportation tomorrow, what is going to happen to them? What is the humane, legal answer to that? Jeff Sessions: Well, the first thing I would say is that my response to Senator Graham dealt with whose responsibility this is. I had a responsibility as a member of this body to express my view and vote as I believed was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. That’s not the attorney general’s role; the attorney general’s role is to enforce the law. And as you know, Senator Durbin, we’re not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody that’s in the country illegally. President Trump has indicated that criminal aliens, like President Obama indicated, certainly are the top group of people, and so I would think that the best thing for us to do—and I would urge colleagues that we understand this—let’s fix this system. And then we can work together, after this lawlessness has been ended, and then we can ask the American people and enter into a dialogue about how to compassionately treat people who’ve been here a long time. Durbin: That does not answer the question about 800,000 who would be left in the lurch, whose lives would be ruined while you’re waiting on Congress for a bill that you opposed. Sessions: Well, I thought it did answer it pretty closely about what you asked, and I understand your concerns. 2:31:10 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: As a question of law, does waterboarding constitute torture? Jeff Sessions: Well, there was a dispute about that when we had the torture definition in our law. The Department of Justice memorandum concluded that it did not necessarily prohibit that, but Congress has taken an action now that makes is absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United States by our military and by all our other departments and agencies. 2:54:50 Senator Amy Klobuchar: If you could just explain your views of the Voting Rights Act moving forward and what would happen in terms of enforcement if you were attorney general. Jeff Sessions: The Voting Rights Act that passed in 1965 was one of the most important acts to deal with racial difficulties that we face, and it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the South. There was a clear finding that there were discriminatory activities in the South that a number of states were systematically denying individuals the right to vote. And you go back into the history, you can see it plainly: actions and rules and procedures were adopted in a number of states, with the specific purpose of blocking African Americans from voting, and it was just wrong, and the Voting Rights Act confronted that. And it, in effect, targeted certain states and required any, even the most minor, changes in voting procedure, like moving a precinct across— Klobuchar: So, how would you approach this going forward? For instance, the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the Texas voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, that was written by a Bush appointee, do you agree with that decision? How would you handle this moving forward? Sessions: Well, I have not studied that. There’s going to be a debate about it, courts are ruling on it now, and that is a voter ID and whether or not that is an improper restriction on voting that adversely impacts disproportionately minority citizens. So that’s a matter that’s got to be decided. On the surface of it, it doesn’t appear to me to be that. I have publicly said I think voter ID laws properly drafted are okay, but as attorney general it’ll be my duty to study the facts in more depth to analyze the law, but fundamentally, that can be decided by Congress and the courts. 3:10:33 Senator Ben Sasse: This administration has made the case regularly that they need to exercise prosecutorial discretion because of limited resources—and, obviously, there aren’t infinite resources in the world—so what are some proper instances, in your view, when an administration might not enforce a law? Jeff Sessions:Well, critics of the immigration enforcement, the DAPA and the DACA laws, said that the prosecutorial-discretion argument went too far. It basically just eliminated the laws from the books. Secondly, with regard to that, the president’s executive—well, the order came from homeland security, not from the Department of Justice, but homeland security’s order not only said we’re not going to force the law, with regard to certain large classifications of people, but those people who’d not been given legal status under the laws of the United States were given photo IDs, work authorization, and social security numbers, and the right to participate in these government programs that would appear to be contrary to existing law. So that would, to me, suggest an overreach. Part 2 1:19:12 Senator Patrick Leahy: Would you use our federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state laws even though it might violate federal law? Jeff Sessions: Well, I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law, Senator Leahy, but absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government. The Department of Justice under Lynch and Holder set forth some policies that they thought were appropriate to define what cases should be prosecuted in states that have legalized, at least in some fashion, some parts of marijuana. Leahy: Do you agree with those guidelines? Sessions: I think some of them are truly valuable in evaluating cases, but fundamentally, the criticism I think that was legitimate is that they may not have been followed. Using good judgment about how to handle these cases will be a responsibility of mine. I know it won’t be an easy decision, but I will try to do my duty in a fair and just way. 1:25:13 Senator Mike Lee: Are there separation-of-powers concerns arising out of the Department of Justice’s current approach to state marijuana laws? Jeff Sessions: Well, I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana, in every state, and distribution of it an illegal act. If that’s something is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule. It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce; we should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we’re able. 1:48:18 Senator Dianne Feinstein: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Just to begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements and written testimony sent to the committee concerning Senator Sessions be made part of the record, and I have some testimonies and letters. Chairman: Without objection, so ordered. Feinstein: Thank you very much. Senator Sessions, when I was a small child, it was during World War II, and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called Tanforan, and it had become a detention camp for Japanese American citizens, and during the length of World War II, well, thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with CRS that says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage against the United States during that period of time. Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and I have tried together to enact a bill to assure that no American citizen or lawful permanent resident detained in the United States can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, pursuant to authorization of military force. So, here’s the question: do you believe that the government can, pursuant to a general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States without charge or trial? Jeff Sessions: Senator Feinstein, that’s an important question. Classically, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a German soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was done, I’m sure, at the Civil War and most wars since. Feinstein: I’m talking about Americans. Sessions: I hear you. So, then, the question is, we’re in a war like we have now that’s gone on multiple years, and I would think the principal of law certainly would appear to be valid, but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, it’s on us to discuss those issues. So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe, as Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many years, that we are in a war, and when members who—unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a designated enemy of the United States. So I’ve probably explained more than I should, but that’s basically the arguments and the issues we’re facing. I respect your concerns, and I’m sure they will continue to be debated in the future. Feinstein: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I’ve served on the intelligence committee for fifteen years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what’s happening in the United States, and this is not—these are Americans that we’re talking about. They can be picked up and detained and held without charge— Sessions: You’re talking about Americans. Feinstein: —of trial indefinitely. And that should not be the case. Sessions: Well, I understand your point, and a citizen of the United States has certain important rights. They cannot be abrogated. It is absolutely so. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review, and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the United States, so they couldn’t be detained. Feinstein: Well, I appreciate that. 1:52:32 Senator Dianne Feinstein: You were one of nine senators to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator McCain in the 2016 Defense Authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual, which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA’s former enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are prohibited by this provision of law as now codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000dd? Jeff Sessions: It does appear to be clear that on the last act and McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. Feinstein:And you would enforce that. Sessions: I would enforce the law, yes. Feinstein: Thank you very much. 1:56:50 Senator John Kennedy: My name is John Kennedy. That’s really my name. 2:01:33 Senator John Kennedy: When a radical Islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we’re told that we should not judge all Muslims by the act of a few. And I agree with that. Don’t you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make a mistake? Don’t you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9 percent law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? Jeff Sessions: Well, I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people, because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful public servants trying to do the right thing. So when we say these things, we can increase risk for them, we can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they’re serving, and actually result in an increase in crime and ineffectiveness in law enforcement. So, boy, these issues are—we can’t miss these issues. Kennedy: No. Part 3 3:20 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an Attorney General Sessions in the Department of Justice? Jeff Sessions: Well, no, and I used that word in the ninety-thousand-foot level of a little concern I have that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea, of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. So that’s just a kind of a criticism of mine, but we are not a theocracy, nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson’s words on the Memorial over here—I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man—and I think we should respect people’s views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. Whitehouse: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? Sessions: Well, I’m not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to— Whitehouse: In the methods that an attorney would bring to bear a case. Sessions: Well, let me just say we’re going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. 59:04 Senator Chris Coons: We worked together to restore funding to the federal public defender service when it was cut by sequestration, and I think that’s because we both agreed that outcomes are more fair when there’s effective representation on both sides. One of the amendments I offered to that immigration bill would have provided counsel to children who were applying for refugee status because they were fleeing violence in their home countries, in U.S. immigration proceedings. Is that something you would support? Jeff Sessions: Senator Coons, as I understand it, that is the law, that you cannot provide lawyers to illegal entrants into the country, and I don’t believe it makes a distinguished—it distinguishes between minors and adults, but I may be wrong about that. I presume that’s why you’ve offered legislation to that effect to change established law, but in general I do not believe we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lawyers for everybody that enters the country unlawfully. I think that would be a massive undertaking. So you’re talking about children specifically, I understand that. Coons: Specifically doesn’t matter... Sessions: And I think that’s a matter that Congress would need to decide what to do about. 1:02:25 Jeff Sessions: I would not favor a registry of Muslims in the United States—no, I would not—and I think we should avoid surveillance of religious institutions unless there’s a basis to believe that a dangerous or threatening illegal activity could be carried on there. 1:28:03 Senator Lindsey Graham: Let’s talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by Senator Feinstein about the indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—this is Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote: There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant—that case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? Jeff Sessions: Generally, yes. Not as familiar as you, but I know you’ve studied at great depth. Graham: Well, this has been a military law. This is sort of part of what I did. Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the nation’s shores, or do they follow you wherever you go? Sessions: Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. Graham: So if you go to Paris, you don’t give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and, basically, search your room without a warrant? Sessions:I don’t believe— Graham :No, they can’t. Your constitutional rights attach to you. So, to the people who say, well, he was in Afghanistan—that doesn’t matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. In Ray Quirin—that case involved German saboteurs who landed in Long Island. Are you familiar with this? Sessions: I’m very familiar with that case. I have read it. Graham: They were German saboteurs and had American-citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by the FBI and tried by the military. So, what I would tell Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues—the law is well settled here, that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the enemy. Under the current law, if you’re suspected of being an enemy combatant, within a certain period of time—sixty days, I think—the government has to present you to a federal judge and prove by preponderance of the evidence that you’re a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with that—your habeas rights? Sessions: Correct, yes. Graham: So, as to how long an enemy combatant can be held, traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they’re no longer a danger. Does that make sense to you? Sessions: It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of war. Graham: And the law of war is designed to, like, win the war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield—you can kill or capture them—and there’s no requirement like domestic criminal law, at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial, because the goal of the law of war is to protect the nation and make sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who’s been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept in military law or the law of war that you have to release them in an arbitrary date because that would make no sense. So, all I’m saying is that I think you’re on solid ground and this idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of the history of the law of war, and I am very willing to work with my colleagues and make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably applied and that we can find due process rights that don’t exist in traditional law of war because this is a war without end. When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we’ll know when it’s over? Sessions: I’ve asked a number of witnesses in armed services about that, and it’s pretty clear we’re talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs and will continue for some time. That’s most likely what would happen. Graham: You’re about to embark on a very important job at an important time, and here’s what my suggestion would be: that we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important activity against radical Islam. The goal is to find out what they know. Do you agree with that? Sessions: That is a critical goal. Graham:And I have found that under military law and military intelligence gathering, no manual I’ve ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I’ve been involved in this business for 33 years, and if a commander came to me as a J.A.G. and said, we just captured somebody on the battlefield—you name the battlefield—they want their rights read to them, I would tell them they’re not entitled to Miranda rights. They’re entitled to Geneva Convention treatment, they’re entitled to humane treatment, they’re entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to Geneva Convention protections. So, I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we’re at war; I’m encouraged to hear that the new attorney general recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war and that the next time we capture bin Laden’s son-in-law—if he’s got any more—I hope we don’t read him his Miranda rights in two weeks. I hope we keep him, humanely, as long as necessary to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does that make sense to you? Sessions:Well, it does. We didn’t give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured, and it’s never been part of the—so they’re being detained and they’re subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully any time, any day, and they’re not entitled to a lawyer, and so forth. Graham: Right. And Miranda didn’t exist back in World War II, but it does now, but the law of the Hamdi case says this is very important, that you do not have to read an enemy combatant the Miranda rights. They do have a right to counsel in a habeas pursuit— Sessions: In a habeas corpus, you’re correct. Graham: —to see if the government got it right; you can hold them as long as it’s necessary for intelligence gathering; and you can try them in Article III course, you can try them in military commissions. As attorney general of the United States, would you accept that military commissions could be the proper venue under certain circumstances for terrorists? Sessions: Yes. Graham: Thank you. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs, January 10, 2017. Watch on Timestamps & Transcripts 1:37:18 Senator Kamala Harris: I’d like to ask you a few questions, starting with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA. Hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients around the country are afraid right now for what this incoming administration might do to them and also what it might do to their unauthorized family members. In order to receive DACA, these young people submitted extensive paperwork to the federal government, including detailed information regarding themselves and their loved ones. They also had to qualify, as you know, for the program; and in qualifying, each person’s case was reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis: the young person must have not been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors; the young person must also not be deemed to pose a threat to national security or public safety; the young person must currently be in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general-education development certificate, also known as GED, and/or have been honorably discharged as a veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces of the United States. Among other things, DACA applicants must submit proof of identity, proof of time and admission in the United States, proof of relevant student school completion or military status, and biometric information. As part of the DACA application process, we conduct biometric and biographic background checks against a variety of databases maintained by DHS and other federal agencies. If a DACA applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation or fails to disclose facts in an effort to obtain DACA, it is a felony, and the applicant will be treated as an immigration-enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States. This means, obviously, that applicants to DACA know that if they’re not giving us the whole truth about their story, they’re putting a target on their own backs. At the time, the Department of Homeland Security assure them that it would follow its long-standing practice of not using such information for law-enforcement purposes except in very limited circumstances. These young people are now worried that the information that they provided in good faith to our government may now be used to track them down and lead to their removal. So my question is, do you agree that under DACA, and those young people have relied—by hundreds of thousands of them have relied—on our representations, do you agree with that, that we would not use this information against them? General John Kelly: The entire development of immigration policy is ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming administration. I have not been involved in those discussions. If confirmed, I know I will be involved in those discussions. I think there’s a big spectrum of people who need to be dealt with in terms of deportation— Harris: I’m speaking specifically about DACA.General Kelly: —and those categories would be prioritized. I would guess—I’m not part of the process right now—I would guess that this category might not be the highest priority for removal. I promise you, Senator, that I will be involved in the discussion. 1:45:00 Senator Rand Paul: We have on the books, and we passed about five years ago, a law that says that an American citizen can be indefinitely detained—not an American citizen overseas, not someone captured in Syria on a battlefield. Someone captured in the United States and accused of terrorism—accused of terrorism—can be kept indefinitely. They could be sent to Guantanamo Bay, but they could be sent to a variety of places. It’s never been used—and this president has said he wouldn’t use it, but he signed it anyway, much to the chagrin of some of us—but it is on the books. And I guess my question to you would be, do you think we can adequately arrest people in our country who are somehow a threat to our homeland security? Do you think the Constitution could be good enough, that due process in our courts of law in our country would work? Or would you think there’re going to have to be times when we’re just going to have to detain people without trial? General John Kelly: I’m pretty committed to the Constitution. I was not aware of the law—it surprises me—but I think we have enough laws to help us out in that regard. Paul: A couple of years ago they decided they’d use license plate screeners, and, apparently, they’re very rapid and they can collect hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of license plates an hour. But they decided they would go to a gun show, and why this particularly concerns me is you could also conceive the people at a gun show as exercising some sort of freedom of speech or some sort of ideological belief by being at a gun show, not just wanting to buy a gun, but actually defending their Second Amendment right to buy a gun. What alarms me is that if we’re going to scan license plates at a gun show, that we might go to a pro-life rally or a pro-abortion rally, depending on who’s in charge. I don’t want the government scanning people’s license plates. I don’t want them covering and getting all of our data just so we can possibly be safe some day from something. I want the individual to be protected, but I’m not against Homeland Security going after individuals and digging as deep as you want with the proper process. So what I would ask you is your opinion on how do we defend the country? Can we do it with the traditions of looking at individuals for whom we have suspicion, or are we going to have to collect all of this data and give up our privacy in the process? General Kelly: Senator, I would go with the traditional route. The scanning of the license plates, I mean, may be a reason—I can’t think of one right now. I’m not for the mass collection of data on people. I’d go the other way. Paul: And this is an amazing amount of information we can look at. If you had all the information of everyone’s Visa purchases in the country, there’s no end. But realize that this is a big part of what your job is, is people are going to be coming to you saying, protect us; we want to be safe, but at the same time, what are we willing to give up? Can we keep what we actually believe and what we are as a people, the freedom that you are committed to as a soldier? And I hope you’ll keep that in mind. General Kelly: Sir. Paul: Thank you. 2:15:08 General John Kelly: My law-enforcement friends tell me that in the case of drugs that come in—frankly, I’m not arguing for legalization for marijuana here; I’m just saying that the only drugs I’ve really ever concerned myself with at SouthCom were the three hard drugs. All the marijuana flow that we saw was coming from some of the Caribbean islands, south. So I’d just focus on the hard drugs. Hearing: , Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, April 05, 2016. Watch on Senate Session: , May 15, 2015. Jeff Sessions speaks at 28:18 Senate Session: , June 21, 2013. Additional Reading Article: by Sara Clarke, US News, January 17, 2017. Article: by Amber Phillips, The Washington Post, January 10, 2017. Article: by Tom Hamburger, The Washington Post, January 9, 2017. Article: by Ben Jacobs and Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, December 7, 2016. Article: by Charlie Savage, New York Times, December 2, 2016. Webpage: , Governing the States and Localities, November 11, 2016. Article: by Liliana Segura, The Intercept, May 4, 2016. Press Release: , Senator Dianne Feinstein, June 24, 2015. Article: by Lincoln Caplan, The New Yorker, June 21, 2015. Commentary: by John Pappas, Roll Call, March 18, 2015. Article: by Nathan Vardi, Forbes, December 23, 2011. Article: by Josh Gerstein, Politico, April 16, 2011. Article: by Tim Wu, Slate, October 15, 2007. May 5, 2005. Supreme Court Opinion: by Justice O'Connor, Supreme Court, June 28, 2004. References Legal Dictionary at Cornell University: U.S. Code: Cover Art Design by

CD142: Unethical Rules

8 januari 2017 | 87 min

The 115th Congress has begun! In this episode, we take a quick look at that government funding law that sets up an April funding crisis for this new Congress and we take a closer look at the shady new rules governing the 115th House of Representatives. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Contact PayPal If you would like them bring back the feature that allows you to choose your own monthly subscription amount, please contact PayPal: : 1-888-221-1161 Thank you! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Bills/Laws Discussed in this Episode "Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act" (Continuing Resolution) Bill Highlights Allows the Department of State Expedites the process for passing that allows General James Mattis to be nominated as Defense Secretary by granting that prohibits the nomination of someone who has retired from the military within the previous seven years. 115th House Rules , Congressional Record, January 3, 2016. Highlighted in the 113th Congress in Forces Federal agencies to get Congressional approval before enacting major rules Sound Clip Sources 3:30pm EST - Rep. Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there is a provision in the rules that are proposed which are not in the rules of the last Congress, which give us great pause because we think it tends to put Members in a difficult place from a constitutional perspective and from a freedom-of-speech perspective. The rule, of course, of which I speak is the rule that relates to empowering the Sergeant at Arms to levy fines. May I ask the gentleman first: Did the Rules Committee find that there was any precedent for such a provision in rules historically? Rep. Pete Sessions: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I would like to refer to something which I believe has been made available, and, if not, I would be very pleased to do it. The House has delegated fining authority, section 1103 of the Manual, where the House incorporates, by reference, title I of the Ethics in Government Act. Under this section, if a financial disclosure is filed late, the filer is subject to a $200 filing fee. It is a fine by another name that is administered by the House Ethics Committee. So what I am suggesting to you is we have seen where there has been the backup of rules that have been backed up by the levying of a fine, and I believe that is what the gentleman is seeking. 3:22pm EST- Rep. Steny Hoyer: If I may conclude, as the gentleman knows, and I won’t say thousands, but hundreds of pictures were taken just an hour ago on this floor—hundreds. We were in session, not in recess. *Rep. Pete Sessions: If I could address that, and I want to do this very gingerly because I do not want to start a battle here. The gentleman and I both know what caused this action was a deep, deep feeling that many Members on your side had about a particular issue. It resulted in what could be seen as—and I saw it as—a protest. Look, we are used to that in this body, people being upset. We are not used to people violating the rule, and it already was a rule that you cannot use, for recording purposes, those devices. We did not make this up. That was already a rule. So it became an advent of a protest. 3:23pm EST- Rep. Steny Hoyer: Very frankly, I think the gentleman is correct; it was a pro- test which gave rise to this rule which I think is ill-advised, but I understand the difference. The protest was because—and as Rules chairman, the gentleman probably knows this better than anybody else—we asked for an amendment that we thought 85 to 90 percent of the American people were for. We didn’t get transparency, we didn’t get openness, and we did not get an opportunity to express our views. That is why we are so concerned because we think, frankly, this is analogous to a gag rule: to shut us down, to shut us out, and to shut us up. by Trevor Noah on The Daily Show, June 23, 2016. Trevor Noah explains the Democrat's House floor protest hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (aired on C-SPAN), April 22, 2016. General James Mattis on the biggest threats to the United States (Iran) , Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 27, 2015 Additional Reading by Jenna Portnoy and Lisa Rein, Washington Post, January 5, 2017. by Karoun Demirjian, Washington Post, January 5, 2017. by Carl Hulse, New York Times, January 4, 2017. by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, January 3, 2017. by Carol Morello and Ruth Eglash, Washington Post, December 23, 2016. by Kiersten Schmidt and Wilson Andrews, New York Times, December 19, 2016. by Brian Naylor, NPR, December 2, 2016. Additional Information , United States House of Representatives History, Art, & Archives. Cover Art Design by

CD141: Terrorist Gifts & The Ministry of Propaganda (2017 NDAA)

25 december 2016 | 107 min

The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act grants permission for next year's wars. In this episode, we look at how the new law, in partnership with a reckless Executive Order, will provide weapons to terrorists and legalize American wars fought with foreign humans. Also in this episode, learn about the new Ministry of Propaganda (the "Global Engagement Center") that the United States will open in July. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: Congressional Dish 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlighted in This Episode Title III—Operation and Maintenance Subtitle B—Energy and Environment The Secretary of Defense can waive that Federal agencies only purchase alternative fuels if the greenhouse gas emissions are equal or lower to the conventional fuel typically used, . “It is the sense of Congress that... "decisions relating to the funding of the Dept. of Defense … should prioritize the support and enhancement of the combat capabilities of the Dept" funds should be allocated among the programs of the Dept in the manner that best serves the national security interests of the US decisions relating to energy efficiency, energy use, and climate change should adhere to the principles described above Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances Effective January 1, 2017, the rates of monthly basic pay for military members is 2.1 percent Gives the Defense Dept one year to report to Congress on a new pay structure: A “ which will take effect on January 1, 2018. Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Benefits and Operations They are going to test a "” which would price commissary goods “in response to market conditions and customer demand" Subtitle F—Other Matters the Secretary of Defense is allowed to waive collections of overpayments to military service members if the collection starts over 10 years after the overpayment occurred. The Defense Department will conduct a of the bonuses paid to California National Guard members from 2004 - 2015, determine how many bonuses were awarded improperly, and determine which ones will be granted a repayment waiver. only if the board can make an affirmative determination that the member “knew or reasonably should have known that the member was ineligible for the bonus pay” Title VII—Health Care Provisions Subtitle A—Reform of TRICARE and military health system Creates : “Eligible beneficiaries will not have restrictions on the freedom of choice of the beneficiary with respect to health care providers.” Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters Subtitle F—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items the purchase of “commercial items” from a bunch of procurement laws defense agencies from entering into contracts for services that are NOT commercial services, unless it’s determined in writing that there are no commercial services available. Subtitle G—Industrial Base Matters Orders a to be completed by the end of 2017 to” reduce the barriers to the seamless integration between the persons and organizations that comprise the national technology and industrial base" Entities to be “integrated” include government entities, universities, nonprofits, and private contractors (including weapons manufacturers) operating in the United States, Canada and () the UK, Northern Ireland, and Australia. Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management Subtitle B—Organization and Management of the Department of Defense Generally Repeals that the Secretary of Defense have policies and procedures to determine the most appropriate cost efficient mix of military, civilians, and contractor personnel to perform the mission of the Dept. of Defense. Title X—General Provisions Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities "The Secretary of Defense for the counter drug activities… of any department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency for…: "Training of law enforcement personnel of the Federal Government, of State, local, and tribal governments…" “Intelligence analysis services" “Aerial and ground reconnaissance” Extended through 2019 Subtitle D—Counterterrorism Specifically prohibits transferring anyone to Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen. Subtitle G—Other Matters Secretary of Defense needs to post the costs of each the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria wars onto a public website. No due date or web address. Title XII—Matters relating to foreign nations Subtitle A—Assistance and training Authorizes the amount of money appropriated to the fund to more than double, from $1.07 billion to $2.5 billion. $500 million must be to purchase precision guided munitions for partner and allied forces The Defense Secretary is allowed to spend to “support foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism" The money a that provided $25 million a year for this purpose Subtitle B—Matters relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan The United States can use to that helps our military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and the United States for “activities meant to enhance the security situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and for counterterrorism" Subtitle C—Matters relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran Extends the authority to “provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition” until December 31, 2018. : “Countering the proliferation of Man-Portable Air Defense Systems is a top U.S. national security priority. In the hands of terrorists, criminals, or other non-state actors, MANPADS - also known as shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - pose a serious threat to passenger air travel, the commercial aviation industry, and military aircraft around the world. The United States is working closely with numerous countries and international organizations to keep the skies safe for all." The 2015 NDAA authorized the transfer of “man-portable air defense system” or “MANPADs” to the “vetted Syrian opposition”. They are so after a 30-day waiting period if a report is submitted to Congress Subtitle D—Matters relating to the Russian Federation Amends to extend the authority to pay to train “national security forces” in “multilateral exercises” through 2018. Adds the to the list of authorized activities, although it the “European Deterrence Initiative” This training is allowed to go to NATO countries and “countries that are ” the amount allowed to be spent on “security assistance” to Ukraine by $50 million, up to $350 million MUST be spent on “Lethal assistance” including anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, grenade launchers, small arms, and ammunition This equipment and technical assistance for a border surveillance network for Ukraine to the list of authorized uses of funding until the Secretary of State certifies that Ukraine has taken steps towards reforms including civilian control of their military and “potential opportunities for privatization in the defense industrial sector” Subtitle E—Reform of Department of Defense Security Cooperation the authorization from the 2012 NDAA that allowed civilian employees of the DoD to be “advisors” to foreign defense ministries into law outlining procedures for The training can be for the following : Counterterrorism Counter weapons of mass destruction Counter-drug trafficking operations a limited the support that can be provided to Columbia & Peru Counter organized crime Border security Intelligence “Operations or activities that contribute to an international coalition operation that is determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest of the United States” the that authorizes programs only for counter-terrorism, support of on-going military operations, and border security. The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State will develop and plan train and equip programs the saying that the Secretary of State will be responsible for coordinating development activities The Secretary of Defense is “from time to time” The will be responsible for “all security cooperation programs" The train and equip programs are “defense articles”, training, “defense services”, supplies, and construction valued The “support” programs are a for extending it is provided or if to another part of the government or another country. 2017 Funding: : The , the “defense-wide” section and “Defense Security Cooperation” section = $6.6 billion + $621 million = $7.2 billion Funds for “” = $720 million Funds for “” and money for the “Defense Security Cooperation Agency” = $7.1 billion Money appropriated for the “ in Iraq and Syria can be spent in countries other than Iraq and Syria as long as Congress is told = $1.1 billion Funds for “Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide for overseas contingency operations” = + = $215 million Money made available in previous years = unknown Total = At least $16.3 billion Subtitle H—Other matters The Secretaries of Defense and State can enter an to each other’s departments during and up to two years after any “contingency operation" “” = food, transportation, petroleum, oils, communication services, medical services, ammunition, base operations support, use of facilities, spare parts, and maintenance services. Prohibits any funds being used to implement the which is a 2013 UN treaty designed to regulate and limit the international weapons trade. We signed it in September. By mid-June 2017, the : “To lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests” Track and evaluate stories abroad that threaten the interests of the US and the US allies and partner nations. Support the creation and distribution of “fact-based narratives” to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States, our allies, and partner nations. Promote “fact-based narratives” to audiences outside the United States The head of the Global Engagement Center will be for a maximum of three years. The State Department to work for the Global Engagement Center for a maximum of four years each, with a maximum of 50 employees The Global Engagement Center “civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions” to: Collect and store examples in print, online, and on social media of disinformation and propaganda directed at the US, its allies, and partners. To “counter efforts” to use information to influence the policies and stability of the United States, it’s allies and partner nations. The Global Engagement Center will end in December 2024 ( The is a global media agency tasked with “informing” other countries in a way that pursues US national interests (aka: our propaganda networks). BBG networks include: Changes made by NDAA The head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will be a , instead of a Director who has been appointed by the Board. Extends to all board members at Radio Free Liberty/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, or “any organization that consolidates such entities” The authorized $150 million per year for each Jordan and Lebanon for border security “support" This provision to the list of counties eligible for “support” funding The money is authorized until the Detailed procedures for court martial cases A list of all the offenses eligible for a court martial Executive Order Executive Order: , The White House Office of the Press Secretary, December 8, 2016 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, January 20, 2016. - Witness Chairman, Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Timestamps & Transcripts 27:30 General Jack Keane: Partnering for training and military education is essential to raise the level of operational competence. There is no substitute for an effective ground force supported by air power. Air power is an enabler; it is not a defeat mechanism. This is about alliance members providing the predominant military response. It’s not the United States military. The United States military would provide a certain level of support. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015, Witness Assistant Secretary Department of State->Near Eastern Affairs Ambassador to Columbia during Bush years Ran the drug war for Bush in 2005 Ambassador to Pakistan Bush/Obama Ambassador to Egypt right after the “uprising” Timestamps & Transcripts 16:40 Anne Patterson: We are pursuing four interlinked goals: (1) to defeat ISIS militarily in both Syria and Iraq, (2) to develop a political transition that gives Syria a future without Bashar al-Assad, (3) to ease the suffering of the Syrian people, and (4) to stabilize our allies as they cope with massive refugee outflows. 36:44 Anne Patterson: Patterson: The idea is to have a transitional government, to work on a time table for Assad’s departure—and let me be clear that that’s a critical element of this policy—and then to work on constitutional review, and, ultimately, an election in Syria. That’s the basic outlines of Secretary Kerry’s strategy. Rep. Karen Bass: So, at this point, if there were to be a transitional government, who do you see composing that? Anne Patterson: Well, a number of opposition figures and people already on the ground. It would be key—and this was in the communiqué—that Syria’s institutions—the military, intelligence, police, civil service—would remain intact, so you wouldn’t have a total collapse of state authority. The idea is just to remove Bashar Assad… Rep. Bass: Like that happened in Iraq? Patterson: …and his cronies from power. 1:30:50 Anne Patterson: The president and certainly the secretary has said many times that Assad’s departure is absolutely critical to any future in Syria. 1:32:45 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Those allies, do they see Assad’s removal from power as imperative to deal with this situation? Anne Patterson: Currently, our European allies, our Gulf allies, and Turkey do see that. They’re absolutely determined that he will not remain in power. 1:47:30 Anne Patterson: There’s broad consensus in the international community that these institutions in Syria would remain intact—the intelligence; the military; the police; the civil service; the ministerial structures, like health structures; and that the goal is to remove Bashar al-Assad and his closest advisors and have this political process that would lead to a new government. 1:56:10 Anne Patterson: Let me stress that that is our goal, to get Assad out. Press Conference: , US State Department, September 25, 2013 Transcript Secretary of State John Kerry: What this treaty does is simple: It helps lift other countries up to the highest standards. It requires other countries to create and enforce the kind of strict national export controls that the United States already has in place. Additional Reading Article: by Andrew Kramer and Clifford Krauss, New York Times, December 12, 2016. Article: by Robert Burns, Associated Press, December 10, 2016. Press Release: , Senator Rob Portman, December 8, 2016. See See Article: by Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, December 5, 2016. Article: by Julian Pecquet, Al-Monitor, December 2, 2016. Article: by Mike Stone and patricia Zengerie, Reuters, November 9, 2016. Report: by Carla E. Humud, Christopher Blanchard, and Mary Beth Nikitin, Congressional Research Service, September 28, 2016. Article: by C.J. Chivers, New York Times Magazine, August 24, 2016. Blog Post: by Todd Dudley, LinkedIn, February 23, 2016. State Department Cable: , author unknown, November 30, 2015. Report: , January 22, 2015. Article: by Nafeez Ahmed, The Guardian, August 30, 2013. Article: by John Hudson, The Cable, July 14, 2013. Bill provision: , National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Article: by Hassan Hafidh and Beniot Faucon, The Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2011. Article: by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, March 5, 2007. Webpage: , US Department of State Webpage: , National Priorities Project Document: , House Armed Services Committee, December 2017. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD140: The War Mongers’ Plan

12 december 2016 | 93 min

No one really knows what Donald Trump plans to do as US Commander in Chief, but the United States' most influential war mongers have a plan. In this episode, hear the highlights from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing - a hearing that was kept off of C-SPAN and had no one in attendance - and get some insight into the advice our next President will be given to direct our nation at war. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , Senate Armed Services Committee, December 6, 2016 Witnesses Served in the State Department in the Reagan administration Co-founder of the , a think tank that laid out a plan for the United States to use our massive military to force a global order centered around American control. Served on the 25 member under Hillary Clinton & John Kerry. Current: Senior Fellow, , The Brookings Institution Current: Board of Directors for the Family: Married to , Assistant Secretary of State, European & Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration Father: , Yale professor and co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century report outlining the global dominance plan Brother: , military historian & author, member of the American Enterprise Institute and Project for a New American Century. Was co-architect of the surge (with General Keane) Sister in law: , President at the Chairman, Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Executive Vice President and Director of Studies, the National Security Council from Feb 2011-October 2012 Research Associate at CSIS () from April 2005-Feb 2007 Columnist at member *Clip transcripts below Sound Clip Sources YouTube: , posted November 5, 2016. YouTube: , posted August 9, 2016. Local News Story: by Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, NBC Washington DC, July 11, 2016. Additional Reading Book: by Thomas P.M. Barnett, May 2005. Article: by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller, December 9, 2016. Article: by Kris Osborn, Defense Systems, October 13, 2016. Press Release: , Business Wire (Berkshire Hathaway), September 28, 2016. Article: by Jeff Stein, Newsweek, August 20, 2106. Twitter: Article: by Jonathan Martin and Alan Rappeport, New York Times, July 24, 2016. Article: by Victor Morton, The Washington Times, July 24, 2016. Article: by Sydney Freedberg, Breaking Defense, April 25, 2016. Article: by Mark Landler, New York Times, April 21, 2016. Email: , Wikileaks document, February 9, 2015 Blog post: , by the editors of RicardCYoung.com, May 30, 2013. Miscellaneous Sources Webpage: Recommended Podcast Episodes , November 16, 2016. Hearing Clip Transcipts {18:30} Chairman John McCain: Our next president will take office as the U.S. confronts the most diverse and complex array of global security challenges since the end of the Second World War. Great power competition, once thought a casualty of the end of history, has returned as Russia and China have each challenged the rules-based order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity. Rogue states like North Korea and Iran are undermining regional stability while developing advanced military capabilities that threaten the United States and our allies. Radical Islamist terrorism continues to pose a challenging threat to our security at home and our interests abroad, and the chaos that has spread across the Middle East, and on which our terrorist enemies thrive, has torn apart nations; destroyed families; killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children; and sent millions more running for their lives. But today—today—President Obama will deliver a speech in Florida, touting his counter-terrorism successes. I’m not making that up. Ugh. Yet, even a glimpse at the chaos enveloping the Middle East and spreading throughout the world reveals the delusion and sophistry of this president and his failed policies. In short, when our next president is inaugurated, just six weeks from now, he will look out on a world on fire and have several consequential strategic choices to make: how to address Russian or Chinese aggression, how to confront threats from North Korean, whether to alter our relationship with Iran, how to improve and quicken our campaign against ISIL, how to counter the instability radiating from Syria, how to ensure a victory in the war in Afghanistan, and I could go on, not to mention the overwhelming challenge of cybersecurity. Our next president will not have the benefit of time and cautious deliberation to set a new strategic course for the nation; that work begins with a series of decisions that will present themselves immediately on day one. That’s why it’s so important to get these things right from the outset. As we ponder these strategic questions, we must also consider our military posture around the world. We must decide the appropriate military presence in Europe and reverse reductions made by the Obama administration under the assumption that Russia was a partner. We also need a fresh look at further steps to enhance U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region. We need to uphold our commitments to allies and partners, including by finally providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and standing by the opposition in Syria. We need to push back against the spread of Iranian malign influence in the Middle East. This starts in Iraq where the eventual liberation of Mosul will intensify the sectarian struggle for power and identity. We need to finally give our troops in Afghanistan what they need to succeed—permanent and flexible authorities to engage the enemy and troop levels based on security conditions on the ground. Here at home we need to return to a strategy-based defense budget. Our next president would need more than $100 billion over and above the Budget Control Act caps just to execute our current defense strategy, which is insufficient since it predates Russian invasion of Ukraine and ISIL’s rampage across Syria and Iraq. This will require our next president to negotiate a broad bipartisan agreement on the budget that brings an end to the dangerous and misguided Budget Control Act. {30:50} General Jack Keane: I’m delighted to be here with Dr. Kagan, a good friend, and let me just say something about Dr. Kagan here and his family. His father, himself, his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law all made— Sen. John McCain?: All have exceeded—Keane: —a great contribution to this country, believe me. {35:45} Gen. Jack Keane: The reality is we need more combat brigades. The reality is we need more ships. The reality is we need more aircraft. It’s indisputable. {37:20} Gen. Jack Keane: The United States has not fielded a single active protection system on a tank yet or any other combat vehic— But your committee has mandated they do it, and you put some money in there for them to do it. Now, listen, if you don’t know what active protection system is, let me take you through it for a second. You put sensors on a vehicle that track an incoming round to the vehicle, and as the round is about to hit the vehicle, you actually have a kill system on the vehicle that kills the round before it hits. Brilliant technology. Where do we get all of that from? Private sector. It has to do with microchip technology and incredible software programs. Out there on a private sector, smart guys, small-business guys, got it; DARPA had a program over ten years ago to look at this; technology’s proven, and the United States military ground forces still haven’t put it on anything. What’s wrong with that? It has nothing to do with money. It doesn’t have anything to do with the White House. It doesn’t have anything to do with Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with OSD. You know what it is? It’s the damn bureaucracy inside the Army. They push back on new technology because they want to design it themselves because you give them money to do it. These are the laboratories and the tech bases. It’s the acquisition bureaucracy that stalls this. When I was vice chief of staff for the Army, I had no idea about all of that, and it took me a year or two to figure out what I was really dealing with—bureaucrats and technocrats that were stalling the advance of a great army. That’s out there, and you’ve got to bore into that with this committee. The military and Defense Department needs help to break down that bureaucracy. {43:20} Gen. Jack Keane: Let me just say something about the DOD business side of the House. Certainly, we are the best fighting force in the world; we are first rate at that. But we’re absolutely third rate at running the business-like functions of DOD because we’re not good at it; we don’t know enough to be good at it. We’re managing huge real estate portfolios. We’re managing huge lodging capabilities. We’re one of the biggest motel owners in the United States. We’re managing the largest healthcare enterprise in the world. The amount of maintenance that we’re doing from a pistol to an aircraft carrier is staggering. Those are all business functions. Business functions. They’re all non-core functions. And we’re also managing new product design and new product development, using business terms, and we don’t do well at this, and there’s a ton of money involved in it. We’ve got to get after that money, and we’ve got to do better at it. And I think we should bring in, as a number-two guy in the Department of Defense, a CEO from a Fortune 500 company in the last five years that’s done a major turnaround of a large organization. We need business people to help us do this. We need a CFO, not a comptroller, in DOD. That CFO has the background that’s necessary to look at business practices in the DOD, where cost-basis analysis and performance, internal-controlled auditing, rigorous financial reviews, cost efficiency, and dealing with waste, those are the kinds of things we need—desperately need them because the money is there. You want to do so much more—some of that money is sitting right there in the budget. {46:55} Gen. Jack Keane: ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization that’s ever been put together. We’re making progress against them in Iraq, to be sure. We do not have an effective strategy to defeat them in Syria, because we don’t have an effective ground force. And we have no strategy to deal with the spread of ISIS to thirty-five other countries. I’m not suggesting for a minute that we’re involved in all of that, but I think we can tangibly help the people who are. {47:35} Gen. Jack Keane: In Iraq, we will retake Mosul. How long will depend on how much ISIS wants to resist; they didn’t resist in Fallujah and Ramadi that much. But after we take Mosul, if we have sectarian strife in Mosul, where we do not have unity of governance and unity of security, then that is going to contaminate the political unity and the country as a whole, which is so desperately needed. And that is a major issue for us. The major geopolitical issue for the United States and Iraq is political unity with their government and diminishing Iran’s strategic influence on Iraq. That is what we should be working on. {48:52} Gen. Jack Keane: The Syrian civil war, a major human catastrophe, to be sure, is a tractable problem, I think as any of us have had to deal with. The reality is we squandered the opportunities to change the momentum against the regime—I won’t list them all, and you’re aware of it—but right in front of us, I still believe we could put safe zones in there to safe guard some of those humans up near the Jordanian and Turkish border and that de facto would be a no-fly zone. I think it would also aid the Syrian moderates and likely attract some others to that movement. {49:49} Gen. Jack Keane: Afghanistan—let me just say, the war is not winnable under the current policy. We cannot win. And that’s the reality of it. We’ve got sanctuaries in Pakistan. No insurgency’s ever been defeated with sanctuaries outside the conflict area. Pakistani-Afghan national security forces do not have the enablers they need to be able to overcome the Taliban, who have resurged. {55:55} Robert Kagan: I want to talk about a subject that we don’t like to talk about in polite company, and it’s called world order. We naturally focus on threats to the homeland and our borders, and we talk about terrorism, as we must, as something that is obviously of utmost importance, has to be a top priority to protect the homeland. But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated, and because the understanding was that while Americans believed very deeply in the 1920s and ’30s that they could be immune from whatever horrors happened out there in the world that it didn’t matter to them who ran Europe or who ran Asia or who did what to whom as long as we were safe, they discovered that that was not true and that ultimately the collapse of world order would come back and strike the United States in fundamental ways. And so Americans decided to take on an unusual and burdensome role of maintaining world order because the United States was the only power in the world that could do it, and the critical element of maintaining that world order was to maintain peace and stability in the two big cockpits of conflict that had destroyed the world and had produced repeated conflicts from the late nineteenth century onward, and that was Europe and Asia. The United States accomplished something that no other power had been able to accomplish before. It essentially put a cork in two areas that had been known for the constant warfare, put an end to an endless cycle of war between France and Germany, between Japan and China; and that was the stable world order that was created after World War II, that America gradually thrived in, that produced the greatest era of great-power peace that has been known in history, the greatest period of prosperity, the greatest period of the spread of democracy. {1:01:24} Robert Kagan We especially cannot take our eye off what I believe is ultimately the main game, which is managing these two revisionist powers and understanding what they seek. We cannot be under any illusions about Russia and China. We will find areas of cooperation with them—they both partake and benefit from and, in some case, sort of feed off of the liberal world order the United States has created—but let us never imagine that they are content with this order, that they do not seek fundamentally eventually upend this order, especially on the security side, to create a situation which they think ought to be the natural situation which is they being hegemonic in their own region. China has a historical memory of being hegemonic, dominant in its region. Russia has a historical memory, which Putin has expressed on numerous occasions, of restoring its empire, which stretched right into the heart of Central Europe. As far as they are concerned, the order that the United States has created is unfair, disadvantageous to them, temporary, and ought to be overturned. And I can only say that in the process of overturning that the history teaches that overturning does not occur peacefully. And so it should be our task both to prevent them from overturning it and to prevent them in a way that does not produce another catastrophic war. {1:04:00} Robert Kagan: It’s unfortunate that after these eight years in which this signal has been sent that during this political campaign, the president-elect comments during the campaign as well as those of his surrogates have only reinforced the impression that the United States is out of the world-order business—comments about whether the United States really should support NATO allies; comments about Estonia being in the suburbs of St. Petersburg; complaints about the need to defend Japan and is that an equitable thing; the fact that both candidates came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is really, in my eyes, a strategic deal more than a trade deal, designed to pull the United States and its Asian partners together. All the elements of this campaign have only sent even greater shockwaves throughout the world about what the United States stands for. So, in a certain sense, yes, the next administration has a big hole to dig out of; it also has to dig out of a hole, to some extent, of its own making. And so we need to see, in the early stages, in the very early stages, I would say, a clear repudiation of all that rhetoric; some clear signs that this new administration understands the importance not only of reassuring allies but a willingness to bolster our commitment to those allies, because after all, the challenge from the revisionist powers is increasing; therefore it’s not enough to say we’re committed to the defensive allies; we have to show that our capacities are increasing along with those of the increasing threat which, of course, gets to the defense budget, which I don’t have to talk to this committee about. {1:22:00} Robert Kagan: I’m very dubious that unless you actually increase the top line that you’re going to get what you need, because I just think, you know, you can only squeeze so far and be as brilliant as you can be. Brilliant is never going to be your answer, so I think the answer is there’s going to have to be more spending, and, you know, I’m not a budget expert at large either, but I would say we have to do whatever we need to do. We have to—if we need to raise taxes or we need to have some package that does that, if we need to find other ways of, you know, dealing problems like entitlement spending to do it, we have to do it. I mean, I lived through the Reagan years. There were increases in defense budget, which were offset by political bargains of one kind or another that required increases in domestic spending which led to increased defense budgets. We survived the—I mean, in overall deficits. We survived the deficits and won the Cold War. So I would say we are going to have to, as a nation, take this seriously enough to pay for it. {1:46:45} Senator Angus King: So selection of leaders is a crucial element, looking for innovative and willingness to move. Let me— Gen. Jack Keane: You’ve got to force the R&D effort, and you’ve got to talk to civilian—you’ve got to talk to defense industry on a regular basis because the defense industry is spending their time thinking about your function. They’re all also spending research dollars on it. You have to have regular communication with them. Let them know where you’re trying to go, bring them into it to help contribute to it, drive your own people to work with them as well. We can accelerate this process rather dramatically. King: And I would suggest that we have to. {1:50:00} Senator Joni Ernst: I would like to get your thoughts on ISIS in Southeast Asia because I do think it’s something that we haven’t spent a lot of time focusing on—we’re not talking about it nearly enough—and Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia, like the Abu Sayyaf group, they are all coming together under the flag of ISIS, and it’s a bit concerning. {1:52:20} Shawn Brimley: One of the tangible second-order benefits that we get from forward deploying our troops and capabilities overseas is we have that daily connectivity, and we have that daily deterrent prowess in places around the region. One of the debates that you see and hear inside the Pentagon, or one of the debates that we had inside the Pentagon as pertains to, say, the Marines in Darwin, for instance, is, you know, you start to break apart these larger entities, like a Marine Air-Ground Task Force, for instance, and you start to put a company here in Southern Philippines and put a task force of some kind in Australia. And there’s a tradeoff between doing that, which gives you that kind of daily interaction with local communities, the ability to do a counter-terrorism operations, for instance. But there is some risk that it becomes more difficult to quickly bring those capabilities back together for a larger threat, responding to a larger threat. And that’s the balance that DOD, particularly OSD, has to grapple with every day. {1:53:50} Senator Joni Ernst: General Keane, could you talk a little bit more about militarily what we could be doing in that region and the use of forces? * General Jack Keane*: Yeah, absolutely. And ISIS has expanded into 35 countries, and we don’t really have a strategy to deal with any of that. We’re focused on the territory that they took, certainly in Iraq and Syria, and I’m not saying that’s not appropriate—that should be a priority—but commensurate with that priority, we should be addressing these other areas as well. And a lot of the identification with ISIS is aspirational but they also have affiliates in these countries—this is one of them—and with an affiliate, they actually sign a document together to abide by certain ISIS principles and rules. And in some cases they direct, some cases they provide aid, but in most cases there’s no direction, and that’s largely the case here. But I believe what the United States can do with its allies is, you know, we’ve been at war with organizations like this now for 15 years, and our reservoir of knowledge and capability here is pretty significant, and it far exceeds anybody else in the world, but we have allies that are participating with us. There’s much we can do with them in sharing intelligence and helping them with training and also helping them with technology—not expensive technology, but things that can truly make a difference with those troops, and I don’t think we necessarily have to be directly involved in fighting these forces ourselves, but aiding and supporting these forces and having a strategy to do that— {1:57:55} Senator Jeanne Shaheen: You also talked about taking retaliatory action against Russia for what they’re doing. What kinds of efforts would you suggest we look at in terms of trying to retaliate or respond to what Russia’s doing in the United States? Robert Kagan: Well, I’m sure there’re people better equipped to answer that question than I am, but I would, you know, publish the Swiss bank accounts of all the oligarchs around. I mean, there are all kinds of things that you could do that would cause— Shaheen: Yeah, keep, keep saying a few— Kagan: Well, I mean— Shaheen: A few more of those because I think those are helpful. Kagan: You know, you could talk about all the ways in which you could reveal stuff about the way Putin has manipulated his own elections. I mean, there’s all kinds of stuff out there, which, if you were of a mind to do it, you could do that would be embarrassing of one kind or another. I mean, these people have money stashed all over the world. They have dachas, they have villas, etc. This is a kind of a Mafia organization where part of the game is everybody holding together. There are ways to create divisions and difficulties. I mean, I’m sure, as I say, there are people who could, if you put them to the task—and for all I know they have been put to the task—you could come up with a whole list of things. And, by the way, I wouldn’t make an announcement of it; they would understand what had happened. But until we do something like that, it’s just open season for them to do this, and so I think we need to treat this like any other weapons system that’s being deployed, because they are treating it like a weapons system. {2:00:32} Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: One of the things, General Keane, that you pointed out is that there is a predilection to try and kill some of the innovative programs so that the Pentagon can actually do those themselves. We had this experience with the Small Business Innovation Research program as we’re going into this NDAA because the initial effort was to try and increase the amount of money that DOD is making available to small businesses to do innovation, and I think we’ve heard from a number of panelists previously that this is one of the best research programs that still exists within—for small businesses to produce innovation that’s used by the Department of Defense. So, is this the kind of initiative that you’re talking about that there may be, for whatever reason, efforts to try and keep it from putting more money into that small-business effort to produce innovation?* Gen. Jack Keane*: I certainly encourage that. You know, the active protection system that I was talking about and that when DARPA made a call to the people to come forward and they knew that this would be an advanced technology that could actually change warfare, the contractor that the United States Army has gone to is a small-business contractor. So here’s this small-business contractor, conceptualized this capability themselves, and it will revolutionize combat warfare as we go forward. They also have technology, interesting enough, and they’ve brought military leaders out to see it, they can stop a bullet. In other words, a 50-caliber bullet, they can kill a bullet. And it’s all because of everything—all of this is available in the private sector. Microchip technology, as I mentioned, and unbelievable software apply to that technology. Well, that’s revolutionary technology that I just mentioned to you. It changes warfare. And so that is something we should be investing in. We should put money behind this. I have no affiliation with this organization—let’s get that straight. {2:05:27} Senator Mike Lee: For several decades, Congress, quite regrettably in my opinion, has deliberately abdicated many of its constitutional responsibilities, and it’s just sort of handed it over to the executive branch, being willing to take a backseat role—a backseat role, at best—in determining America’s role around the world and how we’re going to combat threats that face us. The result ends up being a foreign policy that is made primarily within the executive-branch bureaucracy and Washington-insider circles, informed, as they tend to be, by the interests and the aspirations of the so-called international community. This is a circle that increasingly becomes untethered from any clear lines of accountability, connecting policy, policy makers, and the American people. For instance, the U.S. military is currently operating in the Middle East under a very broad, I believe irresponsibly broad, interpretation of a 15-year-old authorization for the use of military force, using it as justification to engage in a pretty-broad range of actions, from intervening in two separate civil wars to propping up a failing Afghan government. Meanwhile, the executive branch seems increasingly inclined to choose and identify and engage threats through covert actions, and that further helps the executive branch to avoid the scrutiny that would be available if stronger Congressional oversight existed, and they avoid that kind of scrutiny and public accountability. This may be convenient for members of Congress who want nothing more than to just have someone else to blame for decisions that turn out to be unpopular or unsuccessful, but it’s an affront to the Constitution. And it’s more than that; it’s more than just an affront to a 229-year-old document—it’s an affront to the system of representative government that we have dedicated ourselves to as Americans, and I think it’s an insult to the American people who are losing patience with a foreign policy that they feel increasingly and very justifiably disconnected from, notwithstanding the fact that they’re still asked from time to time to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way to defend it. So as we discuss these emerging threats to our national security, I’d encourage this committee and all of my colleagues to prioritize the threat that will inevitably come to us if we continue to preserve this status quo and to exclude the American people and their elected representatives, in many cases ourselves, from the process. So I have a question for our panelists. One of the focuses of this committee has been on the readiness crisis within the military, brought about by the conflicts we’re facing in the Middle East and by a reduction in the amount of money that the Pentagon has access to. The easy answer to this is often, well, let’s just increase spending. That’s not to say that that’s not necessary now or in other circumstances in particular, but setting aside that, that is one approach that people often come up with. But another option that I think has to be considered, and perhaps ought to be considered first, is to reexamine the tasks and the priorities that we’re giving to our military leaders and to ask whether these purposes that we’re seeking readiness for are truly in the interest of the American people, those we’re representing, those who are paying the bill for this, and those who are asked to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way. * Sen. John McCain: Senator’s time has expired. *Lee: So,-- McCain: Senator’s time has expired. Lee: Could I just ask a one-sentence question, Mr. Chairman, to— McCain: Yes, but I would appreciate courtesy to the other members that have—make one long opening statement, it does not leave time for questions. Senator’s recognized for question. Lee: Okay. Do you believe that the Congress, the White House, and the executive branch agencies have done an adequate job in reaching consensus on what the American people’s interests are and on calibrating the military and diplomatic means to appropriate ends? {2:10:43} Robert Kagan: I don’t accept this dichotomy that you posited between what the Congress and the President do and what the American people want. I mean, when I think of some of the—first of all, historically, the executive has always had tremendous influence on foreign policy—whatever the Constitution may say, although the Constitution did give the executive tremendous power to make foreign policy. If you go back to Jefferson, the willingness to deploy force without Congressional approval, you can go all the way through 200 years of history, I’m not sure it’s substantially different, but in any case, that’s been the general prejudice. The Founders wanted energy in the executive and particularly in the conduct of foreign policy. That was the lesson of the Revolutionary War. That’s why they created a Constitution which particularly gave power to the executive. But also, I just don’t believe that the American people are constantly having things foisted on them that they didn’t approve of. So one of the most controversial things that’s happened, obviously, in recent decade that people talk about all the time is the Iraq war, which was voted on; debated at length in Congress; 72 to 28, I think was the vote, or something like that. The American people, public opinion, was in favor of it, just as the American people was in favor of World War I, the Spanish-American War later. These wars turn out to be bad or badly handled, the American people decide that it was a terrible idea, and then people start saying, well, who did this? And the American people want to find somebody to blame for doing these things; they don’t want to take responsibility for their own decisions. I don’t believe we have a fundamentally undemocratic way of making foreign-policy decisions; I think it’s complicated, I think mistakes are made. Foreign policy’s all about failure. People don’t want to acknowledge that failure is the norm in foreign policy, and then they want to blame people for failure. But I think the American people are participants in this process. {2:22:26} Senator Lindsay Graham: We’re talking about important things to an empty room. Just look. Just look. So, Iran with a nuke. Number one—I’m going to ask, like, 45 questions in five minutes. Give brief answers if you can. If you can’t, don’t say a word. Do you believe that the Iranians in the past have been trying to develop a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear power plant, for peaceful purposes? Shawn Brimley: Yes. Gen. Jack Keane: Nuclear weapon, yes. Graham: All right, three for three. Do you believe that’s their long-term goal, in spite of what they say is to have a nuclear weapon? Keane: Yes. Brimley: [nods] Robert Kagan: [thumbs up] Graham: Okay. Do you believe that’d be one of the most destabilizing things in the world? Brimley: Yes. Graham: Do you believe the Arabs will get one of their own? Brimley: Yes. Kagan: [nods] Graham: Do you believe the Iranians might actually use the weapon if they’d gotten one, the Ayatollah? Brimley: [nods] Keane: Well, I think that—before I answer that, I think there’s just as great a chance that the Arabs would use their weapon as a first right to take it away. Graham: Okay, then, so, we don’t know—well, let’s have— Bob, you shook your head. If you’re Israel, what bet would you make? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: Okay, but what if he wants to die and he doesn’t mind taking you with him? What does he want? Does he want to destroy Israel, or is he just giddy? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: When the Ayatollah says he wants to wipe Israel out, so it’s just all talk? Kagan: I don’t know if it’s all talk, and I don’t blame people for being nervous. We lived under—the United States, we all lived under the shadow of a possible nuclear war for 50 years. Graham: Yeah, but, you know, on their worst day the Russians didn’t have a religious doctrine that wanted to destroy everybody. Do you believe he’s a religious Nazi at his heart, or you don’t know? And the answer may be you don’t know. Kagan: I believe that he clearly is the—believes in a fanatical religion, but— Graham: Here’s what I believe. Kagan: I’m not—okay, go. Graham: Okay, I believe that you ought to take him seriously, based on their behavior. Number one— Keane: I think we should take him seriously. Whether they’re religious fanatics or not, I don’t think is that relevant. Clearly, their geopolitical goals to dominate the Middle East strategically, to destroy the state of Israel, and to drive the United States out of the Middle East, they’ve talked about it every single year— Graham: Well, do you think that’s their goal?Keane: Yes. Graham: Okay, so do you- Keane: Of course it’s their goal. And not only is it their goal, but they’re succeeding at it. Graham: Do you think we should deny them that goal. Graham: Good. North Korea—why are they trying to build an ICBM? Are they trying to send a North Korean in space? What are they trying to do? Brimley: They’re trying to threaten us. Kagan: To put a nuclear weapon on it— Graham: Do you believe it should be the policy of the United States Congress and the next president to deny them that capability? Brimley: I believe so. Graham: Would you support an authorization to use military force that would stop the ability of the North Koreans to develop a missile that could reach the United States? Do you think Congress would be wise to do that? Brimley: I think Congress should debate it. I remember distinctly the op-ed that Secretary William Perry and Ashton Carter— Graham: I’m going to introduce one. Would you vote for it if you were here? Kagan: Only if Congress was willing to do what was necessary to a followup—Graham: Well, do you think Congress should be willing to authorize any president, regardless of party, to stop North Korea from developing a missile that can hit the homeland? Kagan: Only if Congress is willing to follow up with what might be required, depending on North Korea’s response. Graham: Well, what might be required is to stop their nuclear program through military force; that’s why you would authorize it. Kagan: No, but I’m saying that if I’m—the answer is yes, but then you also have to be willing, if North Korea launched—Graham: Would you advise me— Kagan: —that you’d have to be willing to— Sen. John McCain: You have to let the witness. Graham: Yeah, but he’s not giving an answer, so here’s the question. Kagan: Oh, I thought I— Graham: Do you support Congress—everybody’s talking about Congress sitting on the sidelines. I think a North Korean missile program is designed to threaten the homeland; I don’t think they’re going to send somebody in space. So if I’m willing, along with some other colleagues, to give the president the authority—he doesn’t have to use it—but we’re all on board for using military force to stop this program from maturing, does that make sense to you, given the threats we face? Keane: I don’t believe that North Korea is going to build an ICBM, weaponize it, and shoot it at the United States. Graham: Okay, then, you wouldn’t need the authorization to use military force. Keane: Right. And the reason for that is— Graham: That’s fine. Keane: The reason—Senator, the reason they have nuclear weapons is one reason: to preserve their regime. They know when you have nuclear weapons we’re not going to conduct an invasion of North Korea. South Korea’s not going to do it; we’re not going to do it. Graham: Why are they trying to build ICBM? Keane: They want to weaponize it. Graham: And do what with it? Keane: I don’t bel— Kagan: Preserve their regime. Graham: Okay, all right. So, you would be okay with letting them build a missile? Kagan: No, but— Graham: Would you, General Keane? Keane: They’re already building a missile. Graham: Well, would you be willing to stop them? Keane: I would stop them from using it, yes. Graham: Okay. Keane: I’m not going to stop them from— Graham: Assad—final question. Do all of you agree that leaving Assad in power is a serious mistake? Brimley: Yes. Keane: Yes, absolutely. Graham: Finally, do you believe four percent of GDP should be the goal that Congress seeks because it’s been the historical average of what we spend on defense since World War II?Kagan: Pretty close. Graham: Thanks. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD137: Story of the 114th Congress

31 oktober 2016 | 109 min

The 2016 Election is finally here; in this episode, we take a look at the job performance of our 114th Congress. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Vote on Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track) (The final version of fast track) Bill Highlighted in This Episode (The GMO labeling law) The real title should be "National bioengineered food disclosure standard" but S. 764 (about the college program) was used as a vehicle to get the GMO labeling bill into law. Bioengineering Food that "has been modified through...(DNA) techniques" using a modification that "could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature". Food Food intended for human consumption By July 29, 2018, the Secretary of Agriculture has to establish a "national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard" Animals fed bioengineered foods will not be labeled as bioengineered themselves Regulations will determine how much of a bioengineered substance needs to be present for the food itself to be considering bioengineered The labels can be text, symbol, or electronic or digital link; the manufacturers get to pick If they choose the electronic or digital link, the bioengineering information must appear on the . The link "collect, analyze, or sell any personally identifiable information about consumers or the devices of consumers" Foods served in restaurants and "very small food manufacturers" are excluded from the regulations "Very small" is not defined. States from enacting their own bioengineering labeling laws. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Additional Reading Article: by Katherine Greifeld, Bloomberg Markets, September 30, 2016. Article: by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, September 25, 2016. Article: by Elizabeth Olson, New York Times, September 20, 2016. Article: by Matt Egan, CNN, September 15, 2016. Blog: by Saqib Bhatti, The Hill, September 9, 2016. Report: by , August 31, 2016. Article: by Patricia Guadalupe, NBC News, August 31, 2016. Report: by , June 30, 2016. Article: by Adam Johnson, Alternet, January 10, 2016. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD136: Building WWIII

17 oktober 2016 | 149 min

The deadline to fund the government has passed and only one section of the government was funded in full for 2017: Military Construction and the Veteran's Administration. In this episode, analyze the wisdom of the military construction projects that are soon to begin and learn about the rest of the law that extended current funding for eleven out of twelve sections of our government until December 9th. Also in this episode, Jen admits a big mistake, an outline of the "9/11 victims bill", some suggestions to help you research your Election Day ballot, and the longest Thank You segment in Congressional Dish history. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlighted In This Episode Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 $7.2 billion for more than will go towards NATO facilities Funds Any must be awarded to United States firm or be awarded to a partnership including United States firms Money can't be used to No money can be used for current prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Department of Veterans' Affairs Provides over Provides approximately for the Veteran's Administration and veteran's medical expenses. Provides approximately in additional funding for private health care for veterans. Adds Whistleblowers will submit paperwork to their supervisor; if the supervisor finds it to be legit, the whistleblower will be informed of transfer opportunities. Whistleblowers will have to provide their name and contact information A central whistleblower office will handle all whistleblower complaints, and will have a hotline for anonymous complaints Supervisors can be suspended and/or removed for failing to act on a whistleblower complaint, restricting an employees ability to file a complaint, or conducting a negative peer review or retaliating against a whistleblower. Supervisors who are suspended or removed can have their bonuses denied or rescinded. Includes , which is $840 million above the request , available until September 30, 2017, will be put in the "Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund" and be used for: Stockpiles of "products purchased" Purchase of and insurance for motor vehicles in foreign countries Construction, alteration, or renovation of "non-federally owned facilities" at State and local laboratories From : "Within the funds provide for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a robust level of funding is intended to support conduct by State, county, or municipal programs, including mosquito control districts." , available until September 30, 2017, will be used for: To response to Zika "and other vector-borne diseases domestically and internationally" To develop and purchase vaccines For To reimburse States for health care costs related to Zika that aren't covered by private insurance For projects in Puerto Rico and other territories for mothers and children , available until September 30, 2017, will be used for: Zika research Vaccine development will go to "Global Health Programs" for: Mosquito control (spraying) Vaccines The money can be donated to the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, the Pan American Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Food and Agriculture Organization Money is prohibited from being spent on "" program will go to the State Department will go to USAID Money can be used by Dept. of Health and Human Services, the State Department, and USAID to hire people to "perform critical work relating to Zika response" The hires will be exempt from as long as Congress is informed Continuing Appropriations Extends current funding for the other 11 divisions of government until is appropriated for the family of former Rep. Mark Takai in Deveselu, Romania and a second site at Redzikowo, Poland. Announced in 2014, EIR is designed to increase" the presence and joint training activities of U.S. military forces in Europe". The Department of Defense ; they want an increase from $789 million in 2016 to over $3.4 billion. The request would support 5,100 active and reserve personel in the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) More than double requested for "Improved Infrastructure", from $89 million in 2016 to $217 million in 2017. : “Although ERI military construction funding was originally intended to be a one-time only investment, the evolving nature of the threat has prompted the DoD to expand its plans for investing in military construction to support the continual presence of U.S. rotational military forces in Europe, increased training activities with European allies, and the prepositioning of Army combat-ready equipment in Poland to support and armored brigade combat team.” Plans include a $200 million facility for prepositioning Army combat brigade equipment in Poland and nine Air Force projects in Germany that will cost $260 million. Huge increase in funding for "Enhanced Prepositioning", from $57.8 million in 2016 to $1.9 billion in 2017. "International terrorism" Does NOT include any act of war No Immunity for Foreign States "A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in civil cases, seeking money, for injuries, damage to property, or deaths occurring in the United States and caused by an "act of international terrorism in the United States" or "acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office"...regardless of where the act occurred. A foreign state can not be sued for negligence Stay of the Civil Action and stop or delay the civil action against a foreign country. The Attorney General can do this by granting . The court can if the State Department "certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant" in an attempt find a resolution. The court if the State Department says the U.S. is still "engaged in good faith discussions" Applicability Applies to injuries caused to a person, property, or business September 11, 2001. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 13, 2016. Witnesses: Major General David Allvin: J-5, US Air Force, US European Command (EUCOM) Rachel Ellehuus: Principal Director, Europe & NATO Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense Tom Tyra: G-3/5/7, US Army Timestamps & Transcripts {06:10} Chairman Vicky Hartzler (MO)- "Foremost of these challenges is a resurgent Russia." {08:12} Rep. Jackie Speier (CA)- "Recent events in Europe have underscored this threat. For example, Russia has occupied Crimea and has fomented the continuing separatists struggle in eastern Ukraine. Across Europe and in particular along Russia’s border, the threat of Russian intervention is on many people’s minds." {11:45} Major General David Allvin - "The strategic environment in Europe has changed drastically over the past 30 months. One of the key reasons for the growing instability has been Russian malign influence, coercion, and aggression against NATO allies and other partner nations. Since the illegal annexation of Crimea and the Russian activity in the Donbass region of Ukraine, the potential for Russia to further advance their military adventurism into NATO countries has demanded a strong response. We at U.S. European Command have been working to assure our allies that our commitment to Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty is iron clad." {15:59} Rachel Ellehuus- "The three challenges that I see post-Warsaw, and as we continue to think about the future of ERI, are, firstly, institutional adaptation—we need to find a way to make NATO more agile in terms of its decision making, command structure, and defense planning; secondly, defense investment—and that’s not just monetary but also in terms of political will—we need to encourage folks to continue to increase their defense spending and to support operations both within the European and transatlantic theater and further afield; and finally, we need to combat internal political challenges and resist those who seek to divide us or undermine the international security order." {18:10} Major General David Allvin -"We find that within the European theater, we see a more aggressive Russia that is influencing on the periphery states of NATO, and so given the current correlation of forces that might exist in a conflict, specifically with the United States, we do not have nearly the forces we had after 25 years of the degradation of the forces in Europe. This has been understandable because there have been other national-security priorities that have actually taken precedence in other parts of the world. However, we find ourself now with smaller number of forces from all services, as well as the appropriate equipment, in order to be able to field and to respond to any other Russian aggression, and I would say that what ERI has done is it is rapidly enabled us to reverse that trend." {20:35} Rachel Ellehuus -"So we’ve seen the French carrier, Charles de Gaulle, deploy in the Middle East to help us with some of our stress on our naval and maritime Forces, we’ve seen cooperative arrangements to use one another’s bases, and we’ve seen host nations stepping up. So when we send our forces to the Baltic states, host nations such as Poland and the Balts are stepping forward to provide that infrastructure and support." {26:40} Rep. Jackie Speier -"You had indicated to me privately that the troops that we will have stationed as part of ERI would be engaged in military exercises, and you had suggested that the numbers may be as high as a hundred per year, some smaller, some larger. How many of these are air shows?" Major General David Allvin: "Ma’am, I actually wouldn’t put an air show in the—" Rep. Speier: "Good." Major General Allvin: "—category of exercise. When we refer to these exercises, and when I say a hundred, some of these are small, maybe company-level exercises, but these are building that understanding that cohesion at the unit level, and I would say those are the most prolific. However, with the initial funding we’ve been able to receive through ERI, we’re able to have exercises at the larger level, the battalion level and above, which really help us understand the inner operability between formations, because we understand that U.S. European Command will not be the sole entity that will have to defend against Russian aggression; we will be fighting with our allies and partners in the region. And so these broader exercises, these higher-level exercises, really enhance that confidence to be able to fight and maneuver and do combined-armed warfare beyond just the United States but in the coalition." {29:33} Tom Tyra -"In the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, you would see 80 M1 tanks and 140 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 18 artillery systems, a number of mortar systems and smaller pieces of equipment. So we would end up with that plus the support vehicles that enable that to fight. Then, there would be a rotating brigade that would bring identical sets of equipment. As you delivered the Fires Brigade, you would expect, a another hundred or so artillery systems, either tube or rocket launched to be added to that Fires Brigade." {52:16} Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX) - "What are the potential risks of this strategy? What could go wrong?" Major General David Allvin: "So, you actually touched on it very well, Congressman, is that there is an escalation risk here." Suggested Congressional Dish Episodes Topic: Ukraine CD067: CD068: Topic: Syria CD041: CD108: Topic: Drug Prices for the Veteran's Administration CD107: Additional Reading Congressional Report: (previously classified) Article: by Jen Judson, Defense News, October 2, 2016. Article: by Leo Shane III, Military Times, September 28, 2016. Article: by Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2016. Article: by Alison Kodjak, NPR, June 3, 2016. Op-Ed: by Joshua R. Itzdowitz Shifrinson, Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2016. Defense Dept. Report: , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, February 2016. Article: by Ketaki Gokhale, Bloomberg, December 28, 2015. Fact Sheet: by Kingston Reif, Arms Control Association, posted May 1, 2013. Additional Information OpenSecrets: Webpage: , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Webpage: Hear Jen On... Rhodes to Success: Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD135: Education is Big Business (Every Student Succeeds Act)

2 oktober 2016 | 91 min

The Every Student Succeeds Act was signed into law at the end of 2015 and is a major overhaul of education policy in the United States. In this episode, find out how the new law will likely lead to a massive transfer of taxpayer money into private pockets. Executive Producer: David Waldstein Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin Mail Contributions to: Congressional Dish 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlights Section 4: Transition Ends previous funding programs on The created by this law will be effective Title I: Improving basic programs operated by State and local educational agencies Funding Provides an for 2017-2020 At least and granted to local educational agencies, who for "improvement activities" States are , which includes AP courses, college courses, transportation to another school as needed, and tutoring. 50 local educational agencies will be allowed to of distributing funds State Plans , States must submit a to be approved by the Secretary of Education. Plans will be but the . Academic standards are can be developed for students with disabilities. Testing States and is allowed to test in any other subject. are required each year from grades 3 through 8, and once in high school. will be required once during grades 3 through 5, once during grades 6 through 9, and once during grades 10 through 12. will be reported by race, ethnicity, wealth, disability, English proficiency status, gender, and migrant status. State and local educational agencies must include a policy that of mandated tests. School Choice and the local education agency is allowed to pay for student transportation, but there is a funding cap. Secretary of Education's Role The Secretary of Education is from intervening or adjusting State plans The Federal Government . Accountability The State will publish a on the State's educational agency's website. Local Educational Agency Plans Local educational agencies Parents Right to Know Local educational agencies that receive Federal funds will have to , including if the teacher has met State qualifications for the grade level and subject and if the teacher is teaching under emergency or provisional status. Parents will also be informed if a student has been taught for by a teacher who does not meet State certification for the grade level or subject. in order for their child to participate in any mental health assessment, except for in emergencies. Children as a condition for attending a Federally funded school. Funds from Federal, State, and local grants can be consolidated and used to of schools where at least 40% of the children come from low income families. Schoolwide programs by the Secretary of Education from regulations governing education grant programs. mental health counseling, mentoring services, "specialized instructional support" services, college courses, activities for teachers, and for children under 6 years old. High schools can use the money for dual enrollment of and can teacher training, tuition and fees, books, "innovative delivery methods", and transportation to and from the program. the criteria that determines which kids are eligible Funds can before and after school programs, summer programs, "activities", academic courses, and this law added . Upon request, local educational agencies including testing, counseling, mentoring, one-on-one tutoring, dual or concurrent enrollment, radio equipment, televisions, computer equipment, and other tech to "address their needs" "Educational services and other benefits for such private school children in comparison to services and other benefits or public school children..." to ensure equity for private school children and teachers A will be created for those who think the private school kids are not getting their share of money. Private school children's share of funds will be who attend private schools. Funds to private school children State educational agencies services to private school children if the local agencies don't, and they can do so by contracting with private organizations. Creates a which will award certificates or degrees equivalent to Masters degrees. The Federal funding provided is . Contracts can be given to for teacher testing, training, technical assistance, program administration, and mentoring. by local education agencies to develop and implement processes for hiring and paying teachers. between schools and private mental health organizations may be formed. The Federal government is States, local educational agencies, and non-profit organizations will be given to for teachers, principals and other school leaders . Government agencies and charter schools and Civics Courses 12 grants will be awarded to create that will inform them how to teach American history and civics. will also get intensive civics courses Funding Between per year through 2020. Some grant money will go to "institutions of higher education or public or private entities" for a that will train & certify teachers, and pay for tuition, fees, and books. Process All students who may be English learners will be assessed . To determine how much money each State gets, data from the , conducted by the Department of Commerce will be used. Funding Grants will be awarded to States to on technology, computer science, music, arts, foreign languages, civics, geography, social studies, environmental education and other experiences that contribute to a well rounded education. Local education agencies to get the money Local education agencies Funding Purpose for to operate Community Learning Centers for extra education programs. State applications will be if the Secretary of Education takes no action within 120 days. the purpose of the Community Learning Centers they will operate and must include that information in their application. tutoring, mentoring, financial and environmental literacy programs, nutritional education, physical education, services for the disabled, after school English learning classes, cultural programs, technology education programs, library services, parenting skills programs, drug and violence prevention programs, computer science, and career readiness programs. Purpose "To of high-quality charter schools available to students across the United States" "To encourage States to provide support to charter schools in an amount more nearly commensurate to the amount States typically provide for traditional public schools" Funding will be awarded to The Secretary of Education is to award at least three charter school grants per year and give out every penny allocated for the first two years. will go to States that give charter schools the most, including funding for facilities, free or low cost use of public buildings, or first-in-line privileges for buying public school buildings. hiring and paying staff, buying supplies, training, equipment, and educational materials - including development of those materials - building renovations, start up costs for transportation programs, and student and staff recruitment costs. Grant money will go towards for charter school facilities. National Activities Funding $200 million increasing to $220 million per year through 2020 Programs Grants for if they partner with a government organization that coordinate community services if they partner with a government organization to improve students safety during and after the school day The Secretary of Education Awards to provide Awards to for pre-school and elementary school aged children on television and the Internet Money will that will contract with producers. Awards will to go Contracts Title VIII: General Provisions Department of Education Staff Within one year of enactment (December 2016), the Secretary of Education must identify all projects that were consolidated or eliminated by ESSA and who were employed administering or working on those programs. Control of Funds Removes the requirement that States that funds will be controlled by public agencies or Military Recruiters Each local educational agency accepting Federal funds in the district, unless the parents have previously . : Parents must submit a written request to the local education agency that their child's information not be released to military recruiters without the parent's consent. Each local educational agency must notify parents of the option to opt-out of recruitment. State Opt-Out Any State that refuses Federal funds Creates , which Sound Clip Sources Forum: , Forum hosted by Senator Tim Scott (GA), February 9, 2015. Panelists: , American Enterprise Institute , Former Louisiana State Senator, Senior Vice President for Liberty Bank & Trust, President of Louisiana Federation for Children , Executive Vice President of Success Academy Charter Schools Timestamps and Transcripts {14:15} Rick Hess: Sitting immediately next to me, we’ve got Ann Duplessis. Ann’s a former state senator in Louisiana. She’s president of Louisiana Federation for Children, where she partners with local and national policy leaders to promote educational options. She continues to work full time while she does this, as Senior Vice President for Liberty Bank & Trust in New Orleans. Oh! She’s also the chair of the Louisiana State Board of Supervisors. Following Hurricane Katrina, it was Ann who authored a bill which allowed the state to take over the majority of schools in New Orleans Parish, which lead to the thriving charter-school movement that you see in New Orleans today. {40:50} Ann Duplessis:Unfortunately, where we are today is, this is big business. Unknown Speaker: That’s right. Duplessis: Education is big business. We are fighting money; we are fighting tradition; we are fighting people’s jobs; and so until and unless we can get past the issues that this is some tradition that we must maintain, until we can have people understand that we need to create new traditions, until we can get past that the jobs that we’re talking about are not jobs that we need to protect, if those jobs aren’t protecting our kids, we have to get past that. And unless we can get our elected officials to understand that, this will all continue to be more of a challenge. {48:00} Emily Kim-Charters: I want to give one example of a piece of paper that we really, truly dislike, and it’s—every year there is this requirement that teachers who are not certified have to send home in the backpack folder for their scholars a piece of paper saying, just wanted you to know, parents, I’m not highly qualified. So, yes, I’ve been teaching for five years, and my scholars are in the top one percent in the state of New York, but I just wanted you to know that I didn’t have that thing called highly qualified, and somebody thought that I should write you and tell you and let you know. I mean, it’s to a level that is truly, truly absurd; whereas, we would want the teacher to write home and say, look, this is what we are doing to get your scholar to the highest potential, and I’ve been doing it for five years very successfully, and this is what you need to do is bring your child to school on time, pick your child up from school on time, get the homework done, and make sure that they are motivated at school. And that’s what we’d like to do, and we have to do the other thing instead. Hearing: , House Education and the Workforce Committee, February 3, 2016. Witness: : American Enterprise Institute Timestamps and Transcripts {27:15} Gerard Robinson: I can tell you quite clearly that school choice is not a sound bite; it’s a social movement. From 1990 to 2015, over 40 states have introduced different types of school-choice legislation, both public and private. Video: , August 15, 2012 Video: by CGCS Video Maker, 2012. Additional Reading Article: by Garrett Mitchell, The Arizona Republic, September 16, 2016. Article: by Brenda Gazzar, Los Angeles Daily News, September 15, 2016. Article: , Biz New Orleans, August 31, 2016. Article: by Kate Zernike, New York Times, June 28, 2016. Article: by Stephen Vita, Investopedia, March 9, 2016. Article: by Lauren Camera, US News & World Report, March 4, 2016. Article: by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, December 29, 2015. Article: by Peter Elkind, Fortune, December 23, 2015. Article: by Colleen Kimmet, In These Times, August 28, 2015. Article: by Thomas Toch, US News & World Report, August 18, 2015. Report: , American Federation of Teachers, June 2015 Article: by Bill Mahoney, Eliza Shapiro, and Jessica Bakeman, Politico, February 20, 2015. Article: by Kristin Rawls, AlterNet, January 21, 2015. Report: by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, December 2014. Article: by Scott Beauchamp, The Atlantic, August 12, 2014. Article: by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, May 20, 2014. Blog post: by Alan Singer, The Huffington Post, April 7, 2014. Article: by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, February 15, 2013. Article: by Gregory Zuckerman, The Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2011. Article: by Susan Saulny, The New York Times, June 13, 2006. Article: by Michael Hoover, Times-Picayune, March 5, 2006. Article: by Susan Saulny, The New York Times, January 4, 2006. Commentary: by Milton Friedman, The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2005. Additional Information OpenSecrets.org: OpenSecrets.org: Website: () Website: Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD134: The EpiPen Hearing

25 september 2016 | 69 min

Epinephrine injectors are life saving devices for people with food allergies and one company - Mylan Inc. - produces almost all of them. In this episode, listen to the highlights from a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee grilling of Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, and judge her justification for raising the EpiPen's price over 600% since EpiPen's competition was eliminated. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Sound Clip Sources Hearing: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, September 21, 2016. Witnesses , CEO of Mylan Inc. , Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Programs Clip Timestamps (In order of appearance in episode) 51:16 - Doug Throckmorton: Available epinephrine injectors 49:55 - Rep. John Mica (FL) and Doug Throckmorton: FDA won't discuss generic applications 0:35 - Chairman Jason Chaffetz (UT) - Introduction 9:25 - Elijah Cummings (MD): Mylan's actions that Congress is investigating 12:20 - Elijah Cummings: List of EpiPen price increases 4:10 - Jason Chaffetz: Executive compensation 16:55 - Elijah Cummings: Martin Shkreli called Congress "imbeciles" 24:10 - Heather Bresch: Introduction 28:16 - Heather Bresch: Mylan's profits from each EpiPen 47:43 - Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) & Heather Bresch: Mylan did not give Congress requested documents 55:10 - Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton & Heather Bresch: Will Mylan reduce the price of EpiPens? 1:23:26 - Rep. Scott DesJarlais (TN) & Heather Bresch: How long were the price increases going to continue? 1:32:10 - Rep. Gerald Connolly (VA) & Heather Bresch: Mylan's EpiPen is 94% of the epinephrine injector market. 1:56:55 - Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI) & Heather Bresch: Why are customers paying so much for EpiPens? 2:01:04 - Rep. Mark Meadows (NC) & Heather Bresch: Everyone pays a different price in this system 2:51:15 - Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ) & Heather Bresch: Mylan moved their headquarters to the Netherlands to pay less in U.S. taxes. 2:37:15 - Rep. Peter Welch & Heather Bresch: EpiPens cost much less in the Netherlands 1:03:15 - Rep. John Duncan (TN): Drug companies have manipulated the market. 1:44:25 - Tammy Duckworth (IL) & Heather Bresch: Mylan prohibited schools from buying from competitors 36:45 - Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) & Heather Bresch: Heather Bresch's explanation for why her mother used her position to get schools to buy EpiPens from Mylan 1:11:40 - Rep. Tim Walberg (MI) & Heather Bresch: Mylans plan would shift costs of EpiPens to government 1:21:16 - Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA) & Heather Bresch: Veterans Administration is able to negotiate it's drug prices, which makes them lower 53:35 - Rep. John Mica (FL) & Heather Bresch: Executive compensation at Mylan 59:19 - Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) & Heather Bresch: What does Heather Bresch do to earn $18 million per year? 2:48:55 - Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ) & Heather Bresch: Heather Bresch often uses a company private jet 2:13:50 - Rep. Mick Mulvaney (SC) & Heather Bresch: Mylan is getting what it deserves 3:08:08 - Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI) & Heather Bresch: Does Heather Bresch feel guilty? 3:39:40 - Rep. Jason Chaffetz & Heather Bresch: The numbers don't add up. 3:43:30 - Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) Closing statement Additional Reading Article: by Jayne O'Donnell, USA Today, September 21, 2016. Article: by Olga Khazan, The Atlantic, August 24, 2016. Article: by Kelefa Sanneh, The New Yorker, February 5, 2016. Additional Information Law: OpenSecrets: Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD133: The Electoral College

12 september 2016 | 62 min

In a Presidential Election year when the Big Two Parties have selected widely disliked candidates, is it possible to vote None of the Above into the Presidency? In this episode, by learning how the electoral college works, we explore our options for realistically denying the Presidency to the chosen candidates of the Republican and Democratic Parties. *This episode has been updated from it's original version for information accuracy. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! United States Electoral College , National Archives and Records Administration. , National Archives and Records Administration. , Fair Vote Democracy , United States House of Representatives , Fair Vote Presidential Elections Reform Program Sound Clip Sources: FBI News Conference: , Federal Bureau of Investigation, CSPAN, July 5, 2016. Video: , YouTube, May 3, 2016. Television News Clip: , CNN, July 12, 2015. Video: , YouTube, May 3, 2016. Videos: Video: By CGP Grey, YouTube, November 7, 2011. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes , By Jennifer Briney, May 23, 2016. Additional Reading Article: By Missy Ryan, The Washington Post, September 8, 2016. Article: By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, August 23, 2016. Article: By John Cassidy, The New Yorker, June 2, 2016. Article: By Celina Durgin, National Review, March 15, 2016. Article: By Kyley McGeeney, Pew Research Center, January 5, 2016. Article: By Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig, The Washington Post, September 5, 2015. Additional Information Report by the Office of Inspector General: Office of Evaluations and Special Projects, May 2016. , State Elections Offices , Pew Reseach Center. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by , with a special thanks to photographer for the awesome photo of the Bennett School for Girls.

CD132: Airplanes!

28 augusti 2016 | 87 min

The Federal Aviation Administration performs the essential work of keeping airplanes from crashing into each other in the sky; in this episode, we take a look at the new law that temporarily funds the FAA and makes some important changes to aviation law. We also travel back in time to the week after 9/11 to examine the origin of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and we examine some ideas that the current leaders of Congress have for the future of air travel in the United States and beyond. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Funding Extends FAA funding through Extends fuel and ticket taxes through Safety Establishes a deadline of for the FAA to have a online and available for use. Creates a maximum for pointing a laser pointer at an aircraft or in the path of an aircraft. Prohibits the FAA from hiring newly trained air traffic controllers The FAA must make sure that each employee of repair stations outside of the United States Drone Safety Over the next two years, the FAA and industry will have two work together to develop a method of . Starting in three years, drone manufacturers will have to informing customers of drone safety laws and regulations. The FAA will work together with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to . A person who uses a drone to interfere with firefighting operations, law enforcement, or emergency response can be . The FAA will conduct a . In the next year, the FAA and NASA will conduct . Time Sensitive Aviation Reform By July 2017, regulations must be in effect requiring airlines to to anyone whose bags are not delivered within 12 hours after the arrival of a domestic flight or 15 hours after the arrival of an international flight. FAA needs to , including public comments, about the risks of eliminating contract weather observer service at 57 airports and can not discontinue contract weather observer service before . FAA must enact regulations requiring pilots of small airplanes to have driver's licenses and , completes a medical education course, Airlines will have to if it's waiting on the tarmac for 3 hours of a domestic flight or 4 hours for an international flight. TSA PreCheck Expansion TSA will add for citizens to use to enroll including online enrollment, kiosks, tablets, or staffed laptop stations. with privacy standards to the standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Private administrators in excess of the costs of administering the program. Securing Aviation from Foreign Entry Points and Guarding Airports Through Enhanced Security TSA Administrator will be allowed to foreign airports with direct flights to the United States to train authorities of foreign governments in air transportation security. Aviation Security Enhancement and Oversight Enacts for people granted access to secure sections of airports Checkpoints of the Future Creates a at between 3 and 6 airports that will test new technologies and new baggage and personal screening systems. Services, supplies, equipment, personnel, and facilities for the pilot programs. Sound Clip Sources: Hearings Hearing: , Joint House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Senate Appropriations Committee, September 20, 2001. Witnesses: Gerald Dillingham, Associate Director of the General Accounting Office Jane Garvey, Administration, FAA Kenneth Mead, Inspector General of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of Transportation Hank Queen, Vice President of Boeing’s Engineering and Product Integrity division Timestamps and Transcripts {54:15} Kenneth Mead: Given the scope and complexity of the security challenge as we know it now, coupled with the long-standing history of problems with the aviation security program, I think the time’s come to revisit the option of vesting governance of the program and responsibility for the provision of security in one federal organization or not-for-profit federal corporation. This doesn’t mean that everybody has to be a federal employee, but it does mean a much more robust federal presence and control. That entity would have security as its primary and central focus, profession, and mission. Under our current system, we’ve asked FAA to oversee and regulate aviation security, and those charged with providing the security—the airlines and the airports—themselves face other priorities, missions, and indeed, in some cases, competing economic pressures. And I think a centralized, consolidated approach with a security mission would require passenger and baggage screeners to have uniform, more rigorous training, and performance standards applicable nationwide, and I think that would result in more consistent security across this country and have higher quality also. {1:22:46} Harold Rogers: Now, I want to ask you about Dulles. Did you check on the employees of the screening operation at Dulles Airport?Kenneth Mead: Yes. We’re checking on the citizens— Harold Rogers: Tell us the makeup of the staff there, in terms of their citizenship in the U.S., for example. Kenneth Mead: Yes. A substantial percentage of them are not U.S. citizens. Harold Rogers: What percent? Kenneth Mead: I think it’s about 80%. It may be somewhat more. {1:26:40} Harold Rogers: What about the turnover rate, Mr. Dillingham? I’ve been reading the GAO’s report on aviation security, issued June of 2000. I think you’re the principal author, are you not?Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: Tell us about the type of personnel that’s screening companies you’re hiring around the country at the airports to screen for terrorists. Gerald Dillingham: Let me go back just a little bit to the point you raised before. Screeners don’t have to be U.S. citizens. They can have a resident alien card as well. The other point you raised with regard to Argenbright, I think Argenbright is also a foreign-owned company as well. And with regard to the types of personnel that are being hired, one of the requirements is that you have a high school diploma or a GED. We have not checked the records of individual companies, but in the course of doing our work, we clearly got the idea that this was not a job where you would find the most skilled workers. Harold Rogers: They’re minimum-wage jobs, are they not? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: And the turnover rate is exorbitantly high, is it not? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: In one airport the turnover rate is 400% a year, correct? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: In Atlanta it’s 375% a year. At Baltimore-Washington, 155; Boston Logan, 207; Chicago O’Hare, 200; and Houston, 237% a year; at St. Louis, 416% a year. Is that correct? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: So these are untrained, inexperienced, the lowest-paid personnel, many of them certainly noncitizens, and by a company that got the contract by the lowest bid. Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: Now, what’s wrong with this picture? Gerald Dillingham: I think the picture is clear to everyone. {2:28:58} Carolyn Kilpatrick: This company that’s in 46 airports, that had the low-bid contract, that’s noncitizens, that handles securities, and has criminal convictions, who hired them?Norman Mineta: The airline is the one that contracts with each… Carolyn Kilpatrick: An airline. One airline. So did they all go together and hire them, or each airline hires them on its own? Norman Mineta: The airline hires the company and then the airlines—well, let me have Ken maybe go into that because he’s maybe got the list of airports with the contractors. Kenneth Mead: Yeah. The different airlines can hire the same security company, and that does happen. Carolyn Kilpatrick: Obviously. Low bids, so they’re going for cheapness. Kenneth Mead: Right. And some airports, Dulles, for example, you have the airlines get together there, and they hire one vendor, and in the case of Dulles, it’s Argenbright. In the case of other airports, where you have an airline, say, that has a dedicated concourse, and you have two or three concourses at that airport, you may have, in fact, three different firms providing the security— Carolyn Kilpatrick: Okay, thank you. Kenneth Mead: —each hired by a separate airline. Hearing: , Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, February 10, 2016. Witnesses: Mr. Paul Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association Mr. Nicholas E. Calio, President and Chief Executive Officer, Airlines for America Mr. Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association Mr. Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation Timestamps and Transcripts {13:00} Bill Shuster: A key reform in this bill takes the ATC out of the Federal Government, and establishes a federally chartered, independent, not-for-profit corporation to provide that service. This corporation will be governed by a board representing the system’s users. {17:55} Bill Shuster: But I just want to say that August of this year, Canadians will launch their first satellites into space, and by the end of 2017, they will have over 70 satellites launched. They will have their GPS system up in space. Currently, today, we can only see 30 percent of the airspace on our current technology. When they deploy those 70 or so satellites, they will be able to see 100 percent of the airspace in the globe, the Canadians. I am told there’s already 15 or 16 countries that have signed up for their services. So Canadians, the NAV CAN, and their partners, they’re developing this system. I believe they are going to become the dominant controller of airspace in the world. They’re going to be able to fly planes over the North Atlantic and over the Pacific, straighter lines, closer together, more efficiently; and that’s when we’re going to really see our loss in leadership in the world, when it comes to controlling airspace and being the gold standard. {19:10} Bill Shuster: Again, this corporation we’re setting up is completely independent of the Federal Government. This is not a government corporation, a quasi-governmental entity, or a GSE. It is not that. The Federal Government will not back the obligations, the financial obligations, for this corporation. The corporation will simply provide a service. {27:27} Pete DeFazio: We’re talking about an asset—no one’s valued it—worth between $30 billion and $50 billion that will be given to the private corporation free of charge. That’s unprecedented. There have been two privatizations: one privatization in Canada—they paid $1.4 billion; it was later found that it was undervalued by about $1 billion. I believe in Britain they paid a little over $1 billion for it. We’re going to take a much larger entity, controlling a lot of real estate, some in some very expensive areas like New York City, and we are going to give it to a private corporation, and the day after they establish, they can do with those assets whatever they wish. They can sell them, and we have no say. {30:11} Pete DeFazio: If someone controls the routes, and they control the conditions under which you access those routes, and they control the investment in the system itself, which means maybe we don’t want to invest in things that serve medium and small cities—they aren’t profit centers; why should we be putting investment there—you know, we are keeping control of the airspace? I guess there’s some technical way we’re keeping control of it, but none of that will be subject to any elected representative. {1:00:05} Ed Bolen: Our nation’s air traffic control system is a monopoly, and it will stay a monopoly, going forward. The airlines, for 30 years, have been lobbying Congress so that they can seize control of that natural monopoly and exert their authority over it. We think that is a fatally flawed concept. The public airspace belongs to the public, and it should be run for the public’s benefit. Do we really think that, given control of this monopoly, the airlines would run it for every American’s benefit? Reading the headlines over the past year would suggest that’s probably not the case. ‘‘Airline Consolidation Hits Small Cities the Hardest,’’ wrote the Wall Street Journal; ‘‘Justice Department Investigating Potential Airline Price Collusion,’’ wrote the Washington Post; ‘‘Airline Complaints on the Rise’’ was a headline in the Hill; ‘‘Airlines Reap Record Profits and Passengers Get Peanuts.’’ That appeared in the New York Times this past weekend. {1:02:30} Ed Bolen: We’re talking about giving them unbridled authority to make decisions about access, about rates, charges, about infrastructure. This is a sweeping transfer of authority. {1:31:12} Don Young: Will the gentleman yield? Let’s talk about the board.Bill Shuster: Certainly. Don Young: You got four big airlines board members. Bill Shuster: Right. Don Young: NATCA now is supporting it. And I question that, by the way. I fought for you every inch of the way, and we want to find out what is behind that. General aviation has one. Unknown: Two. Don Young: Two? Unknown: General aviation has two. Don Young: OK, two. Where’s the other one? Bill Shuster: Two to the government. Don Young: Two—and who are they going to be? Do we have any input on that? No. We do not. The president has—— Bill Shuster: The Department of Transportation will have it. Don Young: The president. And we’re the Congress of the United States. I’d feel a lot better if we were to appoint them. Why should we let a president appoint them? This is our job as legislators. If we’re going to change the system, let us change it with us having some control over it, financially. And the board members should be appointed from the Congress. I am not going to give any president any more authority. That is the wrong—we have done this over and over again. We give the president—we might as well have a king. I don’t want a king. Hearing: , House Homeland Security Committee, May 25, 2016. Witness: Peter Neffenger, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Timestamps and Transcripts {09:20} Bennie Thompson: In fiscal year 2011, there were approximately 45,000 TSOs screening 642 million passengers. In FY 2016, TSA had 3,000 fewer TSOs screening roughly 740 million anticipated passengers, almost 100 million more passengers and 3,000 fewer screeners. {11:11} Bennie Thompson: TSA should have access to all of the aviation security fees collected by the flying public to bolster security. Yet, the passage of the Budget Act of 2013, TSA is required to divert $13 billion collected in security fees toward the deficit reduction for the next 10 years. This year alone, 1.25 billion has been diverted. {29:40} Michael McCaul: And finally, do you support—well, I can’t say—do you support the concept of expanding TSA’s pre-check program, which, I think, would move a lot of people in the long lines into the pre-check lines, which, I think, would solve many of these problems as well.Pete Neffenger: Absolutely. In fact, that’s one of my fundamental priorities is to dramatically expand the pre-check population and dramatically expand the capability to enroll people in pre-check. {48:30} Pete Neffenger: Right now we do not seem to have trouble meeting our recruiting targets. We have a large pool of people that have been pre-vetted. That’s why we were able to rapidly begin to hire that 768 because we had a large pool of available applicants that had been screened that were looking for work. I still want to work on bringing more of that back in house than is currently done. As you know, we work through a private contractor to do our hiring and recruiting right now. {49:53} Mike Rogers: I plan to introduce legislation to transform TSA from an HR nightmare to a security-focused organization by reforming and greatly expanding the Screening Partnership Program. Having worked on these issues for more than a decade, I’ve seen that TSA can do a mission when it’s given a clear, succinct mission. My bill is going to allow more airports to hire qualified private contractors, capable of managing day-to-day operations, and make TSA the driving force to oversee intelligence-based security strategies. {1:41:30} Buddy Carter: You and I have spoken before about privatization, and as you know, in full disclosure, I’m really big on privatization. Atlanta and the bigger airports are indicating to us, or at least to me, that it’s beyond the scope of a bureaucracy to be able to do this, and I just don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling that you’re embracing privatization here. Congress passed the Screening Partnership Program. Tell me what you’re doing to implement that? We need to get to a point where you’re on the other side of the table; you’re asking the questions and overseeing this as opposed to being here answering the questions from us.Pete Neffenger: We’ve made a lot of changes to streamline that process. I was concerned that it takes a long time because it has to go out on bid, it has to go out on contract and the like. I have said repeatedly that the law allows for this. I will work with any airport that’s interested. In fact, I have directed airports like Atlanta to go out and talk to San Francisco because that’s the only large category x airport that has a contracted screening force, and we’ll continue to work with them. I think that there are things that we can do. We are somewhat hampered by the way the federal acquisition rules work. Remember, that’s a workforce that’s contracted to the Federal Government, not through the— Buddy Carter: Hold on. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I want to know. You say you’re hampered. I want to know how I can help you to become unhampered, if that’s a word. Pete Neffenger: Well, as I said, we follow the contracting rules under the Federal Government contracting requirements. It’s a contract to the Federal Government, so I want to make sure that it’s fair and is open competition and you have to give people the opportunity to participate in that. We’ll work with anybody who wants to do that. Buddy Carter: Well, understand that I want to work with you so that we can streamline that process. I still don’t get the feeling that you’re embracing it, and I want to know what you’re doing to encourage it, to the privatization of it. Pete Neffenger: Well, again, it’s up to the airport to determine whether they want to do it. We advertise its availability, we make available information about it. There’s a screening private partnership office that manages that. Additional Sound Clips Video: , Daily Mail, August 21, 2016. Video: , YouTube, August 15, 2016. Television News Clip: , CBS New York, August 14, 2016. Television News Clip: , CBS Chicago, May 16, 2016. Television News Clip: By John Garcia and Laura Podesta, ABC News Chicago, May 16, 2016. Television News Clip: , CBS This Morning, July 20, 2015. Television News Clip: , ABC News, March 2, 2015. Additional Reading Article: By David Wallace-Wells, New York Magazine, August 15, 2016. Article: , Spokane International Airport, Aviation Pros, July 14, 2016. Article: By Andy Pasztor, The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2016. Article: By Elaine Kauh, AVWeb, February 5, 2016. Article: By Andy Pasztor, The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2016. Article By Joseph Coughlin and Luke Yoquinto, Slate, February 2, 2016. Article: By James B. Steele, Vanity Fair, December 2015. Article: By Joan Lowy, PBS Newshour, October 14, 2015. Article: By Lee Fang, The Intercept, May 27, 2015. Press Release: , The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, May 27, 2014. Article: By Jeff Plungis. Bloomberg, December 6, 2013. Article: By Jason Samenow, The Washington Post, May 1, 2013. Article: By Jill R. Aitoro, Washington Business Journal, April 9, 2013. Article: By John Croft, Aviation Daily, October 5, 2012. Article: By Cody Carlson, Deseret News, August 5, 2012. Article: By The CNN Wire Staff, CNN, August 5, 2011. Article: By Dylan Matthews, The Washington Post, August 3, 2011. Article By Ashley Halsey III, The Washington Post, August 2, 2011. Article: By Ashley Halsey III, The Washington Post, July 25, 2011. Article: By Joan Lowy, Yahoo News, July 5, 2011. Article: By Marcus Baram, The Huffington Post, November 23, 2010. Article: By James Ridgeway, Mother Jones, January 4, 2010. Article: , U.S. Government Accountability Office, October 7, 2009. Additional Information Open Secrets: , National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22, 2004. Reports , Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 11, 2016. By Bart Elias, Congressional Research Service, December 16, 2013. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD131: Bombing Libya

15 augusti 2016 | 99 min

Congress goes on vacation; the Executive Branch escalates a war. In this episode, we look back at the 2011 Libya regime change to understand why we are bombing again in 2016. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Sound Clip Sources: Hearings Department of Defense Libya Briefing: , Peter Cook, Department of Defense Press Secretary, August 1, 2016. Timestamps and Transcripts {00:31} Peter Cook: I want to begin today with an update on the campaign to defeat ISIL wherever it tries to spread. Today at the request of Libya’s Government of National Accord, the United States conducted precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL and its primary stronghold in Libya. These strikes were authorized by the president, following a recommendation from Secretary Carter and Chairman Dunford. They are consistent with our approach of combating ISIL by working with capable and motivated local partners. GNA-aligned forces have had success in recapturing territory from ISIL, and additional U.S. strikes will continue to target ISIL in Sirte and enable the GNA to make a decisive, strategic advance. As you may have seen earlier today, Prime Minister al-Sarraj, the head of the GNA, announced that he had specifically requested these strikes as part of the GNA’s campaign to defeat ISIL in Libya. As we’ve said for some time, the United States supports the GNA. We would be prepared to carefully consider any requests for military assistance. We have now responded to that request, and we’ll continue to work closely with the GNA to help the government restore stability and security in Libya. {05:37} Reporter: And then how long the campaign will last? Cook: Again, we’ll be in—this will depend on the requests of support from the GNA, and we’re proceeding along that line. We don’t have an endpoint at this particular moment in time, but we’ll be working closely with the GNA. {13:35} Reporter: Previous intelligence estimates had ISIS at a fighting force of around—up to 6,000, I believe. Is that the current assessment that you guys have? Cook: The assessment numbers that I’ve seen, and, again, I would—it’s hard to gauge ISIL numbers anywhere, but I’ve seen that number, at least our assessment is that it’s been reduced, and the number may be closer to 1,000 now. Reporter: That was in Libya, all together? Cook: In Libya, all together. Reporter: Okay. And lastly— Cook: I’m sorry. That’s specific to Sirte, but that’s the predominant area where ISIL has, in terms of geography, has occupied. So… Reporter: Got it. {15:50} Reporter: So there was a strike today, one in February that you confirmed previously. Is this the third strike now? Was there one before the one in February? Cook: Yes, there was an earlier strike. I believe it was November was the first strike against ISIL by U.S. military. {16:50} Reporter: In answer to a previous question, you said initially there were no U.S. forces on the ground, and then you seemed to clarify later you meant specifically to this operation. Are you saying that right now there are—are you making it clear there are no U.S. teams of any kind on the ground, or are you just specifically saying there are no U.S. on the ground related to this particular operation? Cook: I’m—this is specific to this operation. I’m not going to get into what we’ve talked about previously, the small number of U.S. forces that will be on the ground in Libya. They’ve been in and out, and I’m not going to get into that any further. {24:50} Reporter: You keep comparing this to the strikes at the—strikes in November and February, which were going after a high-value individuals. They were after specific individuals versus my understanding of this—correct me if I’m wrong—is this is the beginning of a campaign, an air campaign in Libya, in which the U.S. military is supporting GNA militias who have pledged their loyalty to the GNA. Is that fair? Is this the beginning of—president has approved these strikes and they will continue until Sirte is liberated. Cook: They will continue as long as the GNA is requesting—Reporter: But they don’t have to put in the request every single time. There is now this blanket authority that exists for the U.S. military to strike when the GNA puts in their requests, right? Cook: These requests—these requests will be carefully coordinated with the GNA. This all originates from GNA requests for assistance, and the president has given the authority for us to have—to carefully consider those requests. Reporter: Okay. But just to be clear, because I think comparing this to these two previous strikes that were going after individuals, each one, it sounds as if this is—these were strikes that were carried out today and that’s to be the end of it. But this is the beginning of an air campaign over Libya, correct? Cook: We are prepared to carry out more strikes in coordination with the GNA if those requests are forthcoming, and so— Reporter: Again, the request has been granted, right? There was—with the GNA— Cook: The authorization has been granted. {28:30} Reporter: Under what legal authority are these strikes being conducted? Cook: The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, similar to our previous air strikes in Libya. {33:17} Reporter And one last thing. You’ve made many references to civilians in Sirte. What is the U.S. estimate of how many civilians remain in Sirte? Cook: I’ll try to get that number for you; I don’t know that offhand. {35:00} Reporter: Peter, were leaflets dropped on that tank and those vehicles before the air strikes? Cook: I’m not aware that they were. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, June 21, 2016. Witnesses: Lieutenant General Thomas Waldhauser, Director for Joint Force Development for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nominee for AFRICOM director Joseph Lengyel, Chief of National Guard Bureau Timestamps and Transcripts {20:35} Lt. General Waldhauser: We have two significant objectives for the United States: one is to get the Government of National Accord up and running, and the second is to disrupt Libya—disrupt ISIL inside Libya. {22:40} Senator John McCain: So, right now you don’t think we need additional U.S. military presence. Waldhauser: At the moment, no.McCain: “At the moment” means to me, we don’t have a strategy. I don’t know what “at the moment”—unfortunately, this administration has reacted “at the moment” with incrementalism, mission creep, a gradual escalation in Iraq and Syria, and I don’t want to see the same thing in Libya, but I’m beginning to see the same thing. Do we have a strategy for Libya, or are we just acting in an ad hoc fashion, which was—it’s been the case, as we’ve watched ISIS establish, metastasize, and grow in Libya. Waldhauser: Well, as indicated, the two strategic objectives that we do have for Libya is to assist the— McCain: I know the objectives; do we have a strategy? Waldhauser: To continue to support that right at this point in time, I am not aware of any overall grand strategy at this point. {1:03:55} Senator Angus King: Does the GNA control the military and the police forces? Waldhauser: Senator, and to my knowledge I would not use the word “control;” I think at the moment these militias, it seems to me, appear to be working in a direction that Sarraj would like to go, but I would, at this point and if confirmed I’ll look into this, but I would not use the word “control” for the GNA over the militias. King: But ultimately that’s going to have to happen if they’re going to control the territory. Waldhauser: Ultimately it will have to happen because you won’t have a secure and working government unless they have control of a military, and in this case numerous militias across that country. Hearing: , Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 15, 2016. Witness Jonathan Winer, State Department Special Envoy for Libya Timestamps and Transcripts {20:50} Senator Ben Cardin: Could you tell us whether the administration is anticipating sending up an authorization to Congress for its military campaign in Libya? Winer: I don’t know of a military campaign in Libya being contemplated, Senator. {28:15} Winer: I think that the problem is not so much pumping it out and losing it—there’s still room for further exploration, further development—as it is the problem of too much money going out and not enough coming in, where the IMF has said to us, for example, there is no solution, no reforms, they can take if they’re not producing their oil. Senator David Perdue: Their debt situation’s already in a crisis level. Winer: Their very difficult economic situation right now is a result of not pumping their oil. They should be pumping 1.5 million a day; they’ve been pumping less than 400,000 a day. Last week I talked with the head of the petroleum forces and said, you’ve got to turn the oil back on. Now he now supports the Government of National Accord, his forces have been fighting to get rid of Daesh, and I think that oil is going to be turned on. It’s absolutely critical. There are forces in the West—there’s Zintan, they’ve shutdown formed in 40,000 barrels a day because some of their concerns have not met.Perdue: And does ISIS, since that’s such an important economic issue—I’m sorry to interrupt— Winer: Yes, sir. Perdue: But, does ISIS pose a threat to that oil production, even if they could turn it up? Winer: To the production, yes. To exploitation, probably not. The pipelines run north-south, south-north, and they are not really exploitable in Libya in the way they’ve been exploitable in Iraq. Daesh did attack the oil crescent area and destroyed some terminals, some areas where oil was being stored at the terminals, and that’s probably reduced their capacity some, but it’s quite limited damage at this point. One of the things that’s really impressive about the efforts against Daesh in the Sirte region and the oil crescent region is it’s begun to push them away from their ability to threaten Libya’s future oil production. So that’s a significant development. But the Libyans need to draw together and address one another’s grievances so that everybody agrees to allow the oil to be pumped again. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 3. 2016. Witnesses Fred Wehrey - Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Claudia Gazzini - Senior Analyst, Libya, International Crisis Group Timestamps and Transcripts {23:10} Fred Wehrey: I just returned last night from Libya, where I saw first hand the country’s humanitarian plight, political divisions, and the struggle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. I spoke to the young militia fighters who are on the front lines against the Islamic State. I heard stories from the victims of its atrocities. What struck me most is that Libya’s fragmentation into armed militias, tribes, and towns has created a vacuum that the Islamic State is exploiting, and this dissolution also presents a number of risks for U.S. and Western strategy against the Islamic State. First, there is no national military command through which the U.S. and its allies can channel counterterrorism aid; the country is split between two loose constellations of armed actors, so-called Dignity camp in the East and the Dawn camp in the West. Now, over the last year, these two factions have fragmented, splintered, to the point that they exist in name only, and although the factions signed an agreement in December for a new Government of National Accord, that government remains stillborn and unable to exert its authority. A key stumbling block is the question of who and what faction will control the country’s armed forces, but perhaps most worrisome is that these two camps are still, in my view, more focused on viewing each other as a threat rather than the Islamic State. Many are, in fact, using the danger posed by the Islamic State as a pretext to wage war against local rivals over political supremacy, turf, and economic spoils. Both sides accuse the other of with the Islamic State. {30:24} Claudia Gazzini: The country’s economic situation is also dire. Libya, as you know, is an oil-rich country, but over the past two years, production of crude oil has plummeted because of attacks on oil fields and oil terminals. The drop in oil prices has forced the country to run a deficit of up to two, three billion dollars a month, and this has rapidly drained the country’s reserves of foreign currency, which are now between 50 and 60 billion dollars, less than half of what they were just two years ago. {36:31} Senator Bob Corker Speaking of special operators, right now it appears there’s a wide variety of foreign special operations forces on the ground in Libya. Both U.S. and Europe have bold plans for supporting the GNA. If the GNA is supported under heavy Western hand does that cause—does that not cause them to lack legitimacy in the eyes of Libyans? {38:15} Wehrey: There is the sense that this is the third government, that it’s been imposed, and so, yeah, if there is military support flowing to that government, it could create some dissonance. {58:25} Senator Ed Markey: Dr. Wehrey, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the United States military and some allies, including France and the UK, have for months been preparing plans for a second intervention into Libya to support a potential Government of National Accord. The report also said that we and our partners have already established a coalition coordinating center in Rome. Sound Clip Sources: News & Documentaries RT Newscast: , Reported by Maria Finoshina, RT, June 30, 2011. RT Newscast: , Reported by Laura Emmett, RT, May 5, 2011. BBC Documentary on Libya: Before Rats Freedom & Democracy in Lybia (2008): Additional Hearings, Documentaries, and News Segments Hearing: , Senate Select Intelligence Committee, June 16, 2016. Documentary: , By Winfried Spinler (2001), Published on YouTube November 14, 2013. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 18. 2012. Hillary Clinton CBS New Interview: , CBS News, October 20, 2011. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, May 25, 2011. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 6, 2011. Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 31, 2011. Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, March 29, 2011. , United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011. Al Jazeera English Television Broadcast: , February 22, 2011. Current News Libya 2016 Article: By Tom Kington, Defense News, August 11, 2016. Article: By News Wires, France 24, August 11, 2016. Article: By Saifuddin al-Trabulsi and Osama Ali, Anadolu Agency, August 11, 2016. Article: By Missy Ryan and Sudarsan Raghavan, The Washington Post, August 9, 2016. Article: By Eric Draitser, Sri Lanka Guardian, August 9, 2016. Press Briefing: , Spokesperson John Kirby, August 2, 2016. Article: By Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press, Fox News, August 2, 2016. Article: By Ben Norton, Salon, August 2, 2016. Article: , Stratfor, August 1, 2016. Article: By Dan Glazebrook, RT, July 30, 2016. Article: , Al Jazeera, July 30, 2016. Article: , Al Jazeera, July 21, 2016. Article: , Al Jazeera, July 20, 2016. Article: By Eric Draitser, New Eastern Outlook, July 14, 2016. Article: , Al Jazeera, July 9, 2016. Article: By Chris Stephen, The Guardian, July 7, 2016. Article: By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN World News, May 26, 2016. Executive Order by Preseident Barack Obama: , The White House Office of the Press Secretary, April 19, 2016. Article: , The National, April 7, 2016. Article: , Al Jazeera, March 31, 2016. Article: By Chris Stephen, The Guardian, March 30, 2016. Article: By Ellen Brown, Counter Punch, March 14, 2016. Article: By Ben Norton, Salon, March 2, 2016. Article: By Jo Becker and Scott Shane, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: By Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 21, 2016. Article: By Declan Walsh, Ben Hubbard and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 19, 2016. Article: By Jack Smith, CounterPunch, February 5, 2016. Article: By Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 4, 2016. Article: By The Editorial Board, The New York Times, January 26, 2016. Article: By Avi Asher-Schapiro, Vice News, January 12, 2016. Additional Reading Libya 2011 to 2015 Article: By Peter Baker, The New York Times, October 3, 2015. Article: , Reuters, August 4, 2015. Article: By David Vine, Politico Magazine, July/August 2015. Article: By Benjamin Siegel and John Parkinson, ABC News, June 17, 2015. Article: By Nafeez Ahmed, Truthout, May 30, 2015. Article: By Nafeez Ahmed, The Cutting Edge, May 13, 2015. Article: By Caroline Alexander and Salma El Wardany, Bloomberg, May 10, 2015. Article: By Ulf Laessing, Reuters, March 23, 2015. Article: , Al Jazeera, March 9, 2015. Article: , Al Jazeera, December 14, 2014. Article: By Nick Turse, Mother Jones, September 6, 2013. Article: By Mathaba, May 13, 2013. Article: By David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, July 8, 2012. Article: By David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, July 7, 2012. Article: By Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, October 20, 2011. Article: , CBS News/Associated Press, September 2, 2011. Article: By John Irish and Keith Weir, Reuters, September 1, 2011. Article: By Julian Borger and Terry Macalister, The Guardian, September 1, 2011. Article: , Human Rights Investigations, July 27, 2011. Article: By Associated Pess, Fox News World, July 22, 2011. Article: By Sebnem Arsu and Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, July 15, 2011. Article: By Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, June 10, 2011. Article: By Jonathan Stevenson, Foreign Affairs, May 9, 2011. Article: , Reuters, April 22, 2011. Article: By Bill Varner, Bloomberg, March 22, 2011. Article: By Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, March 18, 2011. Article: By Dan Bilefsky and Mark Landler, The New York Times, March 17, 2011. Article: By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 14, 2011. Article: By Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider, February 28, 2011. President Barack Obama Executive Order: , The White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 25, 2011. Libya Prior to 2011 Article: , Al Jazeera, February 2, 2009. Article: By Walter J. Boyne, Air Force Magazine, January 2008. Article: By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, June 26, 2007. Article: By Scott McLeod, Time, May 18, 2006. Article: By John Watkins, BBC News, March 18, 2006. Article: By Neil A. Lewis, May 17, 1991. E Book/Pdf: By Muammar Al Qaddafi, Originally published 1975. Additional Information Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: Energy Information Administration: WikiLeaks: , September 2, 2011. Wikileaks: , March 27, 2011. Wikileaks: , March 4, 2011. Wikipedia: Reports By Christopher M. Blanchard, Congressional Research Service, May 13, 2016. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD129: The Impeachment of John Koskinen

11 juli 2016 | 99 min

Impeachment: A serious punishment for serious corruption. In this episode, learn why Congress has begun the process of impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and how his impeachment would prevent light from being shined upon dark money in politics. Executive Producer: Anonymous Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Outlines any information about their contributors, including the person's name, address, or the amount of their contribution or gift on their annual tax returns. Passed the House of Representatives Author: Statement of Administration Policy: By Representative Peter Roskam and 25 cosponsors, Executive Office of the President, June 13, 2016. Suggests that John Koskinen should resign or be fired by the President Suggests that John Koskinen be denied his all of his retirement payments from the Federal government Allows the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia to determine qualifications for 501(c)4 status if the IRS hasn't made the determination after 270 days. Congress must be notified why the IRS Commissioner decides an employee Requires IRS employee and then be for unauthorized disclosures and inspections. IRS employees from using personal email accounts for official business Gives organizations the ability to to include gifts to 501(c)4 organizations as one that makes less than $50 million a year fines for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of tax returns by 10 times the current penalties Institutes for at least 30 days for any IRS employee that reviews an application for tax exempt status "using any methodology that applies disproportionate scrutiny to any applicant based on the ideology expressed in the name or purpose of the organization". Allows the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia if the IRS hasn't made the determination after 270 days. the Treasury Inspector General to Investigate criteria used to evaluate applications for tax exempt status to determine whether the criteria discriminates against taxpayers on the basis of race, religion, or political ideology. The will be the standard used, and before . of this bill prohibits the standard from changing before Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2016. Hearing: , House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, May 24, 2016. Hearing: , Senate Finance Committee, October 27, 2015. Additional Reading Article: By Daniel Newhauser, Government Executive, June 30, 2016. Article: By Kelly Phillips Erb, Forbes, June 24, 2016. Article: By Norm Ornstein, The Atlantic, June 22, 2016. Article: By Lynnley Browning, Chicago Tribune, June 21, 2016. Article: By Fredreka Schouten, USA Today, June 14, 2016. Article: By Colleen Murphy, Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs, June 13, 2016. Article: By Robert Maguire, Open Secrets, February 12, 2016. Article: By Jonathan Mahler and Nicholas Confessore, The New York Times, December 19, 2015. Article: By Michael Beckel, The Center for Public Integrity, January 29, 2014. Article: By Chris Zubak-Skees, The Center for Public Integrity, January 16, 2014. Article: By Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets, December 3, 2013. Article: By Andy Kroll, Mother Jones, November 21, 2013. Additional Information SourceWatch: OpenSecrets: Reports IRS Return Selection: , United States Government Accountability Office, December 2015. By Aaron Forbes and Julia Lawless, United States Senate Committee on Finance, August 5, 2015. By Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration, May 14, 2013. The Internal Revenue Service's Processing Of 501(c)(3) And 501(c)(4) Applications For Tax-Exempt Status Submitted By ‘‘Political Advocacy’’ By The United States Senate Committee on Finance, August 5, 2015. Organizations From 2010–2013 Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico

26 juni 2016 | 96 min

Puerto Rico is in trouble and only the U.S. Congress can help the island of U.S. citizens. Does the bill quickly moving through Congress actually help Puerto Rico? Executive Producer: Kevin Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlights Definitions : "Any political subdivision, public agency, instrumentality - including any instrumentality that is also a bank - or public corporation of a territory, and this term should be broadly construed to effectuate the purposes of this Act." : "To provide a method for a covered territory to achieve fiscal responsibility and access tot he capital markets." Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution "Provides Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations for territories." The Oversight Board will have the power to demand budgets from any public agency. The Oversight Board has the power to exclude any public agency from the requirements of this law. Seven members appointed by the President. Six of the selections will be from lists created by Congress. Two people must be selected from two different lists submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Two people must be picked from a list created by the Majority Leader of the Senate One person must be selected from a list created by the House Minority Leader One person must be selected from a list created by the Senate Minority Leader One person will be picked by the President on the board has to be a territory resident or "have a primary place of business in the territory" The The Governor, or his designee, will be an : 3 years : Can be done by the President "only for cause" : The member can serve until someone else is appointed. Must have "knowledge and expertise in finance, municipal bond markets, management, law, or the organization or operation of business or government" No one who has worked for the territory's government is allowed on the Oversight Board Rules for the Oversight Board The work of the Oversight Board : Approve of fiscal plans Approve a budget To waive a law To approve or disapprove an infrastructure project The Oversight Board can change the territory's laws "with the greatest degree of independence practicable" The Oversight Board may conduct their business . The Board will determine his/her salary The Executive Director , as long as none of them get more than he does. Are allowed but need to be publicly disclosed "The Executive Director and staff of the Oversight Board may be appointed and paid governing appointments and salaries. Any provision of the laws of the covered territory governing procurement shall not apply to the Oversight Board." The Oversight Board "shall have the right to secure copies, whether written or electronic, of such records, documents, information, data, or metadata from the territorial government" about how much money they think they're owed Failure to obey an Oversight Board will be punished in court according to territorial laws. The Oversight Board must "ensure prompt enforcement" of any territorial laws "prohibiting public sector employees from participating in a strike or lockout Any legal action against the Oversight Board must be filed in a United States district court for the territory, or in the US District Court for Hawaii if that territory doesn't have one. The courts to consider challenges to the Oversight Board's certification determinations The Oversight Board will be in an amount chosen by the Oversight Board. Until the territory creates the law providing permanent funding, the territory must transfer whatever the Oversight Board requests in its budget - at least - to a fund controlled by the Oversight Board. The Oversight Board to give some money back The territory is prohibited from exercising any oversight of the Oversight Board activities or from enacting any law related to the Oversight Board that "defeat the purposes of this Act" Fiscal plans submitted by the Governor will have to get certification from the Oversight Board. A fiscal plan developed by the Oversight Board will be If the Governor and Legislature don't have a budget certified by the first day of the fiscal year, the Oversight Board's budget . Contract Reviews The Oversight Board can "to ensure such proposed contracts promote market competition" Sense of Congress: Territorial government should be a If a "contract, rule, regulation, or executive order" fails to comply with Oversight Board policies, the Oversight Board The Oversight Board will be able to rescind any law enacted between and the day all members and the Chair of the Oversight Board are appointed. They comply with a court order, implement a Federal Government program, implement laws that match Oversight Board policies, or maintain Federally funded mass transportation assets. The Oversight Board to make recommendations to change how pensions are paid to government employees and to transfer government services and entities to the private sector The Board to cut budgets for services, institute hiring freezes, and cut off agencies from making financial transactions. Will need the approval of 5/7 Oversight Board members As long as the Oversight Board is in operation, the territorial government . The territory needs to balance its budget for 4 consecutive years and the Oversight Board must certify that the banks are willing to lend to the territorial government The territories' debt is not backed by and will not be paid by the United States. (the bankruptcy chapter) to restructure it's debt. Banks ("creditors") that to a payment moritorium will not be bound by it. Allows the Governor of Puerto Rico to [lower the minimum wage to for new employees until the Oversight Board is terminated, not more than four years. Lawsuits against Puerto Rico for repayment are prohibited from the day of enactment of this law until . Revitalization Coordinator There will be a Revitalization Coordinator under the command of the Oversight Board, who will be . The Revitalization Coordinator must have in the planning, predevelopment, financing, development, operations, engineering, or market participation of infrastructure projects who isn't currently contracting with the government of Puerto Rico and was not a former government employee after 2012. The Revitalization Coordinator will be . Project Assessments Will include how the project contributes "to transitioning to " Expedited Permits Relevant agencies of Puerto Rico's government need to create an for the infrastructure projects declared "critical" by the Revitalization Coordinator. "Any transactions, processes, projects, works, or programs essential to the completion of a Critical Project shall continue to be processed and completed under such Expedited Permitting Process " If a project is determined by "the Planning Board" to likely affect the implementation of existing Puerto Rican land use plans or an approved Integrated Resource Plan, the project will be for Critical Project designation. The Oversight Board can that would "adversely impact the Expedited Permitting Process Limited Access to Courts Lawsuits against a "critical project" must be brought of the decision the lawsuit would challenge. Vote June 9, 2016: Passed the House of Representatives Sound Clip Sources TV Episode: , April 17 2016. TV Episode: , March 8, 2015. Hearing: , House Committee on Natural Resources, May 25, 2016. Hearing: , House Committee on Natural Resources, May 24, 2016. Hearing: , House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, February 25, 2016. Hearing: , United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 1, 2015. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee, December 1, 2015. Additional Reading Article: By Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press, ABC News, June 21, 2016. Article: By Erik Larson, Bloomberg, June 21, 2016. Article: By Rachel Greszler, The Daily Signal, June 13, 2016. Article: By Lydia Wheeler, The Hill, June 13, 2016. Article: By Rachel Greszler and Salim Furth, The Daily Signal, June 8, 2016. Article: By Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, May 23, 2016. Articles: , The New York Times, Last Updated May 23, 2016. Article: By Ryan Grim and Paul Blumenthal, The Huffington Post, May 13, 2016. Articles: , The New York Times, Last Updated May 7, 2016. Article: By Jon Greenberg, Politifact, April 27, 2016. Article: By Rupert Neate, The Guardian, February 14, 2016. Article: By Maria Levis, Health Affairs Blog, December 29, 2015. Article: By Jonathan Mahler and Nicholas Confessore, The New York Times, December 19, 2015. Article: By Chris Bury, PBS, August 13, 2015. Article: , By Jose Fajgenbaum, Jorge Guzman, and Claudio Loser, Centennial Group International, July 2015. Article: By Michelle Kaske, Bloomberg, May 19, 2015. Article: By Larry Rohter, The New York Times, May 10, 1993. Additional Information Documentary: Website: , May 25, 2016. OpenSecrets: Website: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: . . , February 6, 1952. Reports By R. Sam Garrett, June 25, 2013. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD127: The Fast Act (The Transportation Funding Law)

12 juni 2016 | 123 min

Transportation: We all need it, and Congress funded it. In this episode, we take a detailed look into the FAST Act, which funds our national transportation network for the next five years. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlights Division A - Surface Transportation Title I - Highways will get an average of 41 billion per year. Private Freight Grants: can go to to upgrade rail infrastructure; the Federal share of these projects is . Acceleration of Projects Creates a that will allow States to conduct environmental reviews, using their own State laws, instead of using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Capped at 5 States The State can if the Secretary of Transportation determines the laws of the State are at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. No lawsuits will be allowed, challenging the permit approval, after . The program will sunset in Miscellaneous The Department of Transportation will identify for installation of electric car charging stations and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas refueling stations by the end of 2016. The goal is to have the charging and refueling stations deployed by . Allows the Department of Transportation that need fixing until the Interior Department issues final rules. The Secretary of the Interior to move the swallows. Title III - Funding level The Mass Transit Account will provide and at . for positive train control installation, which can be used to pay for up to 80% of the cost. Buy American Requires to be purchased, when possible. Title IV - grants to States in return for their establishment of laws that prohibit texting and driving. Federal grant money from funding for State & local programs for checking for motorcycle helmet usage or checkpoints for motorcycle monitoring. Impaired Driving grants to States for implementation of drunk driving laws. on marijuana-impaired driving by the end of 2016. Title V - Drug Test Expansion Allows companies to conduct preemployment and random tests of commercial drivers for alcohol and controlled substances using as an alternative to urine testing. for religious exemptions Title VI - Innovation Highway User Fees Grants will be provided to States that for funding the Highway Trust Fund. The goal is to test the design and public acceptance of user fee systems. to operate the fee collection systems. The fees collected Public Access to Research A will be available on a public website and updated once per year. Title VII - Special permits for special permits for transporting hazardous material by 60 days The decisions will be available to the public "Wetlines" Requires the Secretary of Transportation to that would have Transportation of flammable liquids by rail Within a year, the Secretary of Transportation has to to require railroads to report accurate, real-time information about hazardous liquids being transported to the local fusion centers, who will share the information with State and local first responders. Tank cars that do not meet can to transport oil and ethanol until 2018 or May 2025, depending on the type of tank car. The Secretary of Transportation can for up to 2 years The Secretary of Transportation will have 180 days to create regulations to make sure that tank cars modified to meet Federal standards that have been approved by the Secretary. Title XI - Funding Levels Amtrak, which owns the tracks and passenger cars operating in the Northeast, will get an average of $. For Amtrak operations in the rest of the country, where private freight companies own our tracks, Amtrak will receive an average of . Food and Beverage Reform Amtrak will have to eliminate the operating loss associated with offering food and beverages on Amtrak trains in a way that Amtrak will be to cover food and beverage related operating losses in December 2021. Pets on Trains Amtrak will have one year to launch a Gulf Coast Rail A working group will be created and have nine months to for the best option for restoring intercity rail passenger transportation between New Orleans, LA and Orlando, FL. Privatizing long distance routes The Secretary of Transportation will have to create a by mid-2017 that will allow non-Amtrak companies to operate up to 3 long distance passenger rail routes. The non-Amtrak operator will have control of the route for and it can be renewed once for an additional four year period. The operator will be given an . The can be the private company that owns the tracks, another private company that has an agreement with the track owners or the States. The non-Amtrak operator to Amtrak's reservation system, stations, and operations facilities and will be required to give hiring preferences to the Amtrak employees laid off because of the transfer. Cameras on Trains By the end of 2017, the Secretary of Transportation must create regulations in the control cabs on all passenger trains Liability Cap Amtrak for the fatal accident that occurred on May 12, 2015. Title XXIV - Recall Information The Secretary of Transportation will have until the end of 2017 to for easily accessible information on vehicle safety recalls. Information about recalls will have to be in addition to first class mail. There will be a testing the idea of States informing customers of recalls when they register their vehicles. the amount of time consumers get to have their recalled tires replaced from 60 days to 180 days. Rental Car Safety Rental car companies with more than 35 cars can sell, lease, or rent out cars They can until the solution is available, if it is not immediately available at the time they are notified. Motor Safety Violation Penalties from $5,000 per violation to $21,000 per violation, capped at $105 million. Driver Privacy Information from a car's event data recorder by someone other than the owner or lessee if it's authorized by a court, is provided willingly by the owner/lessee, is needed for emergency response purposes, or is for traffic safety research and the personally identifiable information is hidden. Tires The Secretary of Transportation will create regulations for , taking steps to ensure that wet traction functionality is not effected. Creates a Whistleblowers If a whistleblower gives credible and unique information about a safety problem to the Secretary of Transportation that results in sanctions, the . Title XXXII - Passport Denials for Tax Delinquencies If a person has a seriously delinquent tax debt over $50,000, the Secretary of State and . Privatize Tax Collection the Treasury Secretary to issue at least one contract for tax collection services . Customs Fees a every year with inflation. Federal Reserve Funds the amount of money that can be held by the Federal Reserve banks to $10 billion and transfers the remainder to the general fund of the Treasury. Adjusts to the lower of the rate of the 10 year Treasury notes or 6 percent Strategic Petroleum Reserve the Secretary of Energy to sell at least 66 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and deposit the money into the general fund of the Treasury. The amount sold at the discretion of the Energy Secretary until the revenue totals $6.2 billion. Crop Insurance Profits a part of the Bipartisan Budget Act that Oil & Gas Royalties that oil and gas companies could accrue on overpayments. PAYGO Scorecard The effects of this law on the budget Title LI - Export-Import Bank and reduces the amount of loans, guarantees, and insurance the Export-Import bank can have outstanding to $135 billion (from $140 billion). the Export-Import bank to hold 5% of it's funds in reserve to protect against losses. independent audits of the Export-Import bank's portfolio that allows the Export-Import Bank to enter into contracts to "share risks". The amount of liability allowed to be transferred is capped at a total of $10 billion. Title LV - Environmental Law Waivers during which there is a sudden increase in energy demand - which that the United States is involved in - "any party" that follows an order to generate electricity can not be sued for violating "any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation". The order that allows immunity for breaking environmental laws as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "determines necessary to meet the emergency and serve the public interest." If the emergency order is set aside by a court, . Strategic Transformer Reserve The Secretary of Energy will have one year to create a plan that are critical infrastructure or support military installations. Title LXXI - Makes it and for a company that makes under $1 billion per year to offer stock to the public. Title LXXII - Reduces paperwork for companies that make under $1 billion per year and want to offer stock to the public. Title LXXIII - the requirement that collectable coins be 10% copper Title LXXIV - Investment advisors who solely advise small business investment companies even if they are managing assets over $150 million (). Title LXXV - Banks will not have to mail privacy notices to their customers if they haven't changed their policies since the last disclosure was sent. Title LXXVI - Allows privately held shares to be sold to without registering the securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Title LXXXII - Allows to become members of Federal Home Loan Banks if they are FDIC eligible or are certified by the State If the State doesn't get to it in under 6 months, the application is . Title LXXXIII - of a bank that counts as a "small bank" from banks that have less than $500 million to banks that have less than $1 billion for the purpose of . Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , November 3, 2015. Hearing: , November 3, 2015. Hearing: , Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, September 17, 2015 Hearing: , House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, June 24, 2015. Hearing: , House Transportation and Infrastructer Committee, June 2, 2015. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes By Jennifer Briney, June 27, 2015 , By Jennifer Briney, June 24, 2014 By Jennifer Briney, February 8, 2014. Reports By William J. Mallett, December 28, 2015. , December 2, 2015. Additional Reading Article: By Chris Isidore, CNN Money, June 1, 2016. Article: By Bill Cummings, CtPost, May 17, 2016. Article: By Shriram Bhashyam, TechCrunch, December 20, 2015. Article: , Insurance Journal, December 4, 2015. Article: By Shannon Van Hoesen, Environmental Working Group, December 3, 2015. Article: By Robert S. Kirk, December 2, 2015. Article: By Keith Lang, The Hill, December 1, 2015. Article: By Joan Lowy, U.S. News and World Report, October 28, 2015. Article: By Meghan Cline, United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, October 27, 2015. Article: By Philip Brasher, Agri-Pulse, October 27, 2015. Article: By Ashley Halsey III and Michael Laris, The Washington Post, October 27, 2015. Article: By Ashley Halsey III and Michael Laris, The Washington Post, October 25, 2015. Article: By Simone Pathe, PBS, September 15, 2014. Article: By Alwyn Scott and Tim Hepher, Reuters, September 10, 2014. Article: By Susan A. Fleming, U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 11, 2013. Article: By Steven Pearlstein, The Washington Post, September 9, 2013. Article: By Timothy Cama, Transport Topics, October 10, 2011. Article: By Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, January 27, 2011. Additional Information Metra Website: explaining the FAST Act OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: OpenSecrets: Website: Website: Website: Website: Website: YouTube: , October 3, 2008. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD126: The Presidential Primary

24 maj 2016 | 88 min

Beware: Opinions ahead! In this special episode, Jen discusses who she will vote for in the June 7th Presidential Primary. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Podcast Awards Thank you for nominating Congressional Dish for the 2016 Podcast Awards! Please every day starting on May 29th North Carolina Podcast Are you interested in co-creating a Congressional Dish style podcast about North Carolina? Email Amy Howard: ahoward at ralieghonlineradio.com Sound Clip Sources YouTube: , April 13, 2016. YouTube: , February 25, 2016. YouTube: , January 17, 2016. YouTube: , February 18, 2016. YouTube: , November 19, 2015. YouTube: , October 2002 Additional Reading Article: by Sam Goldfarb, Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2016. Article: by Mark Landler, The New York Times Magazine, April 21, 2016. Article: by Robert O'Harrow Jr., The Washington Post, March 27, 2016. Article: by Danielle Marie Mackey, The Intercept, March 11, 2016. Article: by Greg Grandin, The Nation, March 3, 2016. Article: by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: by Scott Shane and Jo Becker, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: by Lynn Holland, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, December 18, 2015. Article: by Lee Fang, The Intercept, July 6, 2015. Article: by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, January 9, 2014. Article: by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, October 24, 2013. Article: by Chris Woods, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, February 4, 2012. Article: by Francisco Macías, The Library of Congress, September 11, 2008. Additional Information Website: by Colin Dodds, Investopedia. Votes: Votes: Votes: Votes: Votes: Bernie: No Hillary: Yes Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD125: Un-Governing the Internet

8 maj 2016 | 71 min

The Internet is a powerful international communications tool; how does the 114th Congress plan to change how it's governed? In this episode, learn about the bills that are moving through Congress that could have a direct effect on the future of the Internet. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Highlighted in This Episode Bill Highlights the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the rates charged for Internet access The FCC can regulate rates of a company This bill to data roaming and interconnection Votes Passed the House of Representatives Author (IL-16) AT&T Comcast Time Warner Bill Highlights of the FCC's net neutrality order to small businesses for Information the "small businesses" would be exempt from having to provide customers includes: Information about promotional rates, including the duration of the promotion and the full monthly charge the customer will incur after the promotion expires All one-time and/or recurring fees, including modem rental fees, installation charges, service charges, and early termination fees. Actual network performance A "small business" is one that has Votes Passed the House of Representatives Author (OR-2) Cellular Telecom & Internet Association US Telecom Association Bill Highlights electronic communication services from disclosing the contents of communications that the company is holding or maintaining (without this bill, only communications "stored" would be protected). the current law that allows the government to access using only subpoenas (as opposed to warrants) for electronic communications that have been stored more than 180 days the 180 divider with new text that requires warrants regardless of the amount of time the information is stored. the electronic communication services to notify their customers of a received warrant, court order, subpoena, or request, if they want to. the amount of time the government may delay notification of customers about a warrant, subpoena, order, or other directive from to 180 days. Eliminates that requires the government to inform the customer about the information the government requested and why the notification was delayed. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Author (KS-3) Yahoo Google AT&T Facebook Twitter Deutsche Bank : DOTCOM Act of 2015 Bill Highlights the transition of NTIA's functions in Internet domain name registry until 30 days after Congress receives a report outlining the transition plan. Votes Passed the House of Representatives Author (IL-15) Verisign Sound Clip Sources Hearing: (not available on C-SPAN), House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, March 17, 2016. Hearing: (not available on C-SPAN), House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, May 13, 2015. Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, December 1, 3015. Additional Information , March 2016. Report to Congress: by Lennard Kruger, Congressional Research Service, March 22, 2016. Report to Congress: by Lennard Kruger, Congressional Research Service, March 23, 2016. Hearing: , Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, February 25, 2015. Hearing: , House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, May 13, 2015. Hearing: (not available on C-SPAN), House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, July 8, 2015. , February 2015. ICANNWiki: Webpage: Webpage: Additional Reading Article: , The Economist, March 5, 2016. Article: by Klint Finley, Wired, March 1, 2016. Article: by Mario Trujillo, The Hill, November 30 2o15. Article: by Caitlin Dewey, The Washington Post, September 24, 2015. Article: by Milton Mueller, Internet Governance Project, August 18, 2015. Article: by Jeremy Malcom and Mitch Stoltz, Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 23, 2015. Article: , The Economist, March 20, 2014 Article: by Sam Gustin, Fortune, March 17, 2014. Press Release: by NTIA Office of Public Affairs, March 14, 2014. Article: by Grant Gross, PC World, December 15, 2014. Scholarly Journal: by Marshall Leaffer, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 5, Fall 1998. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War

24 april 2016 | 106 min

Two defense contractors went on a podcast and everything they said was true. In this episode, discover the shocking extent to which our government has privatized wartime operations. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! 2016 Podcast Awards Please Sound Clip Sources , March 19, 2016. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 21, 2011. Hearing: , Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight, July 16, 2013. Additional Reading Article: by John Keller, Military and Aerospace Electronics, March 9, 2016. Congressional Research Service Report: by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service, February 25, 2016. Investor Report: , February 1, 2016. Bill Text: December 15, 2015. Congressional Research Service Report: by Heidi M. Peters, Moshe Schwartz, and Lawrence Kapp, Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2015. Article: by Dan Lamothe, The Washington Post, October 21, 2015. Article: byPete Troilo, Jeff Tyson, Devex, August 31, 2015. Article: by Philip Dorling, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 31, 2015. Nautilus Institute Report: by Desmond Ball, Duncan Campbell, Bill Robinson and Richard Tanter, May 28, 2015. Article: by Dan Lamothe, The Washington Post, May 20, 2015. Article: , Signal AFCEA, April 7, 2015. Defense Contract Audit Agency Report: Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency, March 25, 2015. Article: by Neal Ungerleider, Fast Company, February 18, 2015. Article by E.B. Boyd, Fast Company, January 28, 2015. Article: by Lindy Kyzer, Clearancejobs.com, August 15, 2013. Article: by Philip Dorling, The Age, July 26, 2013. Congressional Research Service Report: by Moshe Schwartz and Jennifer Church, Congressional Research Service, May 17, 2013. Government Accountability Office Report: , May 2013. Article: by Lindsay Wise, McClatchy Newspapers, January 19, 2013. Bill Text: in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, December 28, 2012. Article: by Eloise Lee and Robert Johnson, Buisness Insider, March 13, 2012. Article: by Skyler Frink, Military and Aerospace Electronics, February 1, 2012. Article: , StreetInsider.com, October 31, 2011. , August 2011. Congressional Research Service Report: by Moshe Schwartz and Joyprada Swain, Congressional Research Service, May 13, 2011. Article: by Spencer Ackerman, Wired, August 9, 2010. Article: by Angie Drobnic Holan, Politifact, June 9, 2010. News Release: by Sudi Bruni, Northrop Grumman Corporation, November 10, 2009. Additional Information Webpage: , March 9, 2015. Indeed.com Job Openings: Webpage: April 15, 2016. March 16, 2016. Webpage: Wikipedia: (C-RAM) Podcast Interviews Featuring Jennifer Briney: , April 20, 2016. , April 14, 2016. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD123: Health or Profits

10 april 2016 | 109 min

Health: Is there anything more important? In this episode, we examine three bills that moved through Congress in 2016 which would have a direct effect on the health of American citizens. Would the changes benefit you? . He will be forever loved and missed. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Highlighted in this Episode Bill Highlights the for the last year of a to be paid by health insurance companies to fund care for “high risk individuals” limits on for low income families the for getting health care as individuals the to help low income people pay for their individual premiums the for companies with less than 25 employees and provide health insurance for their employees the tax penalty for people who don’t get their own health insurance the who don’t provide their employees health insurance and backdates it to protect large companies who didn’t provide health insurance in 2015 to States that give money to any organization that provides abortions (Planned Parenthood) , which is health care for poor people the 2.3% Medical Device Tax on the manufactures of large medical equipment, even though it was from the Treasury to the Federal Hospital Insurance Fund, which is and is used to fund Medicare. Congressional Budget Office Report December 11, 2015 Vote Senate: House Author of Georgia’s 6th district : Has more than doubled it’s lobbyist spending since 2008 - ; the ones that have to pay a 2.3% medical device tax directly to members of Congress : Represents drug companies and : : : Bill Highlights from certifying any class action lawsuit unless every person in the lawsuit has suffered “the same type and scope of injury” as the named class representative has to publicly report the name and exposure history of each person and the basis of the payments to that person The information would not include their “confidential” medical record or their social security number The trust would from the trust if the request is about liability of asbestos exposure These disclosure requirements would be valid for . Vote Passed the House of Representatives: President Obama issued a Author of Virginia’s 6th District Biggest contributor during his career has been the : : : : : : : Bill Highlights Amends disclosure requirements for Instead of requiring the restaurants to display "the number of calories in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale", the to display: The number of calories in the whole item The number of servings and the calories per serving or The number of calories per however the restaurant chooses to divide it Restaurants where , the restaurant may choose to only provide nutrition information by "a remote-access menu" (such as a menu available on the Internet) as the sole method of disclosure instead of on-premises writings" Allows buffet and self-serve restaurants to publish , if they choose to. Nutrition information Regulations for enforcing this bill will have to be created within a year. The bill then at restaurants, including regulations that have already taken affect, from taking effect until 2 years after the new regulations are done, killing all nutritional information requirement for three years. Restaurants for accuracy. Restaurants for violating nutritional information laws. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Author of Washington's 5th district Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Rules Committee January 5th, 2016 Hearing: , April 29, 2015 Commercial (YouTube): Additional Reading Article: by Jim Morris, Center for Public Integrity, February 16, 2016. Article: by Mark Hofmann, Business Insurance, January 17, 2016. Article: by David Gianatasio, October 22, 2015. Article: by Michelangelo Conte, The Jersey Journal, June 9, 2015. Article: by Igor Kossov, Law360, June 2, 2014. Article: by Joe Nocera, New York Times, January 12, 2014. United States Government Accountability Office Report: , September, 2011. Article: , by Jason L. Kennedy, March 20, 2011. Article: by Alex Berenson, New York Times, April 18, 2002. Article: , Robert Pear, NYT, Dec 6, 1999. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD121: Legislative Sabotage

13 mars 2016 | 77 min

Stop the laws! In this episode, learn the details of three bills that passed the House of Representatives in January which would make enforcing laws more difficult for Federal agencies. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Highlighted in This Episode : Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016 (SCRUB Act)" Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission a new five-year commission that will review government rules to determine which ones should be eliminated "to reduce the costs of regulation to the economy." The Chairman will be appointed by the President and must have "experience in rulemaking". The other eight members will come from lists created by the majority and minority leaders in Congress of "individuals learned in rulemaking". The commission will have and "the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place within the United Stats at any designated place of hearing within the United States." The bill appropriates which are available until expended. The commission members , and will be given travel expenses including a per deim. The commission will , who will . The commission , and may "to the extent funds are available" The commission will review the Code of Federal Regulations to find rules . Priority will be given to "major rules" which have been in effect more than 15 years, impose paperwork burdens" which could be reduced without "significantly diminishing" regulatory effectiveness. Goal is to reduce the cost of Federal regulations by 15% with a "minimal reduction" in the effectiveness of the regulations. Whether the rule achieved its purpose and could be repealed without recurrence of adverse effects If technology, time, economic conditions, market practices, or "other relevant factors" have rendered the . If the rule is If the rule has "excessive compliance costs" or "is otherwise excessively burdensome", as rules that give goals instead of orders and "give economic incentives to encourage desired behavior" If the rule "" If the rule of entities based in the United States Repeal procedure If Congress passes a joint resolution approving the Commission's repeal suggestions, the Federal agencies will have to repeal the rules of the joint resolution's enactment. Repealed rules without a new law enacted All records of public meetings and hearings within 1 week, Regulatory Cut-Go recommended by Commission so that costs of enforcement offset each other, but the agency must have a net reduction in costs Vote Passed the House of Representatives There is an identical bill in the Senate: President Obama issued a Author of Missouri's 8th district : Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act H.R. 712 is a combination of three bills: The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act, and the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Title 1: Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Any agency that is challenged by a private company on a regulation must within 15 days. The until after the complaint is published online and there is a public comment period. The agency much have a public comment period before settling cases and . A court that doesn't "allow sufficient time and incorporate adequate procedures" for the agency to comply with all administrative rule making procedures and any Executive order that governs rulemaking. Title II: All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act Makes every Federal agency ) on the status of every rule they are working on. ) until they have been published on the Internet for at least 6 months. Exemption for national security, emergencies, or implementing international trade agreements. Requires the first report to include cost-benefit analysis for all proposed or final rules for the ) before the enactment of this law. The agencies will have . Title III: Providing Accountability Through Transparency Requires agencies to on the Internet, capped at 100 words. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Five members of the House of Representatives and voted "Aye" on H.R. 712 of Texas's 26th district of New Jersey's 11th district of Ohio's 7th district of Florida's 17th district of Texas's 10th district There is an identical bill in the Senate: Author of Georgia's 9th district of Iowa wrote the Senate version : Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act (STREAM Act) Publication of Science Used to Create Rules The Secretary of the Interior would have to all the scientific data, environmental analysis, economic assessments, policies or guidances used in developing a new rule 90 days before before the new rule or draft of a rule is published. If the research is not published on the Internet 90 days before a rule or draft's publication, the . If the publication of research data is delayed by 6 months, the Secretary unless that would cause . Study Which Delays Regulations A on the regulatory effectiveness of the Stream Buffer Rule must be completed . The Secretary of the Interior related to the stream buffer zone rule until one year after the study is submitted. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Author of West Virginia's 2nd district His third largest contributor is Congressional Budget Office Reports , May 8, 2015. , April 16, 2015. , September 23, 2015. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, March 24, 2015. Television show: , CBS, March 6, 2016. Additional Reading Article: by Charles Clark, Government Executive, January 8, 2016. Article: by Mason Adams, Grist, April 3, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD119: Angel Watch Center

14 februari 2016 | 55 min

Good news! A new law was signed that creates the Angel Watch Center within the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate travel monitoring of convicted sex offenders. In this episode, Jen discusses the new law with Tim Ballard, the Founder and CEO of , which is an organization dedicated to saving children from international sex slavery. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Outline : International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders Creates the , which will be a part of the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, within the Department of Homeland Security. The Center about individuals trying to enter the United Stets who have committed sex crimes. Information received and some information will shared with other Federal, State, and local agencies at the Center's discretion. The Center will use to inform other countries if a sex offender The Center will have to of any inaccurate information transmitted The Center of an individual's sex offender status "when appropriate" for passport application purposes. The Center will create an about notifications and forward any complaints about other Federal entities. , the Center must confirm errors in writing, take steps not to repeat them, and inform the individual of the steps taken. The United States Marshals Service about sex offenders. The regarding sex offender notifications sent by the National Sex Offender Targeting Center to the sex offender registries, including: Dates and locations of departures and arrivals Flight numbers Purpose of travel Sex offenders who fail to report their travel will The State Department will issue and may revoke passports that don't include one. The sex offender can get a new passport without the identifier if they are taken off of the sex offender registry. $6 million per year from 2017 and 2018 to implement the changes. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Human Rights, May 14, 2015. Additional Information Article: by Rebecca Kaplan, CBS News, February 11, 2016. Recommended Podcasts to with Timothy Ballard of Operation Underground Railroad with Trevor Bryant: Interview with Jennifer Briney ( to Vibin' Higher on iTunes) Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD118: How to Get Your Name on the Ballot

7 februari 2016 | 89 min

In this special episode, we take a look at the different rules for getting on the ballot for the House of Representatives in all fifty States, and take a look at how some States made it way too hard for Independents to qualify. Executive Producer: Nickolas Zacharias Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Ballot Access Information Alabama Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 4,109 - 6,174 Fees: Filing Deadline: Alaska At-large state Signatures Needed: registered voters Fees: None Filing Deadline: Arizona Signatures Needed: 2014 Range: 2,784 - 4,381 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Arkansas Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: California As of the 2012 election, California has had a ; in order to get on the General Election ballot, you have to be one of the top two vote getters in the Primary election. [caption id="attachment_1992" align="aligncenter" width="484"] Top 2 Primary clearly benefits Republicans and Democrats[/caption] To appear on the Primary Election ballot, a candidate needs to either collect signatures or pay a fee, or a combination of the two. Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Colorado Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Connecticut Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Either or Delaware At-large state Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Florida Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 3,512 - 5,072 Fees: 2016: $6,960 Candidates can file an and get the fee waived if they don't pay anyone to collect signatures or collect campaign contributions. Filing Deadline: Georgia Signatures Needed: Signature range unavailable because the Georgia Secretary of State's office does not provide the necessary voter registration statistics online and would not provide the signature requirements by phone or email. Fees: Can be waived if the candidate turns in a Filing Deadline: Hawaii In Hawaii, candidates, regardless of party, and receive at least 10% of the votes cast for the office or receive a vote equal to or greater than the lowest vote received by the partisan candidate who was nominated. Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Idaho Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Illinois Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Indiana Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Iowa Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Kansas Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1750 Filing Deadline: Kentucky Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Louisiana Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Maine Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Maryland Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 4,624 - 5,155 Fees: Filing Deadline: Massachusetts Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Michigan Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Minnesota Candidates need to collect signatures or pay a filing fee to be on the General Election ballot Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Mississippi Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Missouri Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 3,073 - 4,622 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Montana At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 10,194 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Nebraska Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Nevada Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 803 - 1,863 Fees: Filing Deadline: New Hampshire Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: New Jersey Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: New Mexico Official petition counts until March 2016. Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: New York Signatures Needed: 2014 Range: 3,058 - 10,591 Fees: None Filing Deadline: North Carolina Signatures Needed: : 15,493 - 24,709 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: North Dakota At-large state Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Ohio Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: (the day before the Primary Election) Oklahoma In Oklahoma, candidates need to pay a filing fee or collect signatures in order to appear on the General Election ballot Signatures Needed: Approximately 15,000 signatures Fees: Filing Deadline: Oregon Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Pennsylvania Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Rhode Island Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: South Carolina Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: South Dakota At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 2,774 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Tennessee Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Texas Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Utah Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Vermont Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Virginia Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Washington As of the 2008 election, Washington has had a ; in order to get on the General Election ballot, you have to be one of the top two vote getters in the Primary election. To qualify for the Primary Election: Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: West Virginia Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 1,404 - 1,543 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Wisconsin Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Wyoming At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 3,302 Fees: Filing Deadline: Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD117: Authorization for Limitless War

31 januari 2016 | 78 min

War ahead! While the country was busy preparing for a giant snowstorm, the leader of the Senate quietly made an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) eligible for a vote in the Senate, fast tracking it through normal Senate process. In this episode, take a look at the details of this AUMF and find out what the war mongers in charge might be planning to do with it. To get the most out of this episode, listen to and Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Texts : A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its associated forces (Lindsay Graham's AUMF) "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations." President has to submit a report to Congress every 60 days. "The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5." (c) "The authority granted... does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." Section 5: "The term "associated persons or forces" means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities agains the United States or its coalition partners" Duration: "This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized." Repeal: "The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is hereby repealed." "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, December 9, 2015. Witnesses Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense General Paul Selva, US Air Force, Vice Chairman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, January 20, 2016. Witnesses General Jack Keane, , at , Dean and Executive Professor at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. , Former Assistance Secretary of State of European and Eurasian Affairs Video/Article: by Ali Weinberg, ABC News, January 10, 2016. Video: , The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, September 15, 2014. , January 21, 2016 () Additional Reading Webpage: Webpage: , Cornell University Law School Article: by Sara Mimms and Alex Rogers, National Journal, January 21, 2016. Article: by Clare Foran, The Atlantic, January 22, 2016. Article: by Rachel Oswald, Roll Call, January 21, 2016. Article: by Seung Min Kim, Politico, January 21, 2016. Article: by Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today, December 1, 2015. Report: , Congressional Research Service, April 2015. Article: by Holly Yeagar, Washington Post, October 10, 2013. Listener Recommendations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD116: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – Environment Chapter

24 januari 2016 | 57 min

In the third and final episode in our Trans-Pacific Partnership series, we take a look at the TPP Environment Chapter; would the treaty actually improve enforcement of environmental laws around the world? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), November 17, 2015. Senior Fellow in Global Economy and Development, Digital Task Force Member at June 2015 – January 2016 (8 months) Washington D.C. Metro Area "Provided advice on the digital trade issues between the U.S. and the EU" Subject Matter Expert for the , World Trade Organization "Expert appointment to the E15 working group developing an agenda for the WTO on climate change issues Former trade negotiator with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Former diplomat to the Australian Embassy in Washington D.C., specializing in trade and climate change issues. Alexander von Bismarck "An international campaigning organization committed to investigating and exposing environmental crime" Served in United Nations and World Bank Responsible Trade Program Director, Sierra Club Highlights : Governments "shall cooperate to address matters" related to pollution from ships : "Cooperation" includes "dialogues, workshops, seminars, conferences.. technical assistance, the sharing of best practices on policies and procedures, and the exchange of experts." Cooperative activities "are subject to the availability of funds" and the participating governments "shall decide, on a case-by-case basis, the funding of cooperative activities." : Each government "shall" create sanctions for violations of environmental law that "may include" a right to bring action against the violator for damages or injunctive relief. : "Corporate Social Responsibility": Each government "should encourage" companies to "adopt voluntarily" standards to protect the environment. The voluntary standards "should be designed in a manner that maximises their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade." : Each government "shall promote and encourage the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" The governments "shall cooperate" to address "matters of mutual interest"; 'cooperation' means "exchanging information". : "Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy" Says the governments recognize that the transition requires collective action Governments "shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest" : Each government "shall seek to operate a fisheries management system that regulates marine wild capture fishing and that is designed to prevent overfishing and overcapacity..." Each government "shall promote the long-term conservation of sharks, marine turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, through the implementation and effective enforcement of conservation and management measures." "No Party shall grant or maintain any of the following subsidies..." that negatively affect fish stocks. Gives the governments three years to change their laws to comply. : The governments "commit to promote conservation and to combat the illegal take of, and illegal trade in, wild fauna and flora. The parties "shall exchange information", "undertake joint activities" and "endeavor to implement... resolutions." Such measures "shall include sanctions, penalties... that can act as a deterrent to such trade." "Each Party retains the right to make decisions regarding the allocation of administrative, investigatory, and enforcement resources." : Environmental issues are eligible for the Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunals Additional Reading Article: by Todd Tucker, Washington Post, January 8, 2016. Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Article: by David Shukman, BBC News, November 26, 2014. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD115: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Access to Medicine

17 januari 2016 | 82 min

Need drugs? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an international treaty that Congress needs to approve. In this episode, find out how the TPP would affect your access to medicine. Would this treaty provide you access to life-saving drugs or would it provide the pharmaceutical industry excessive profits? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Congress did not stand when President Obama told them to pass the TPP Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), December 8, 2015. VP of Global Innovation Policy, Previously worked at the stock market, where he created the , which keeps companies up to date on their stock prices, and the Founder of , a high-tech services firm, and , an investment firm. Senior VP for International Affairs, Biotechnology Industry Organization Former Vice President of International Government Relations at Former Deputy Vice President of International Affairs for Director of Policy and Analysis, Former Special Advisor to Former Human Rights Advisor for the World Health Organization Former laywer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Director, Global Access to Medicines Program Highlights : Forces all TPP countries to "ratify or accede to" six international treaties if they haven't done so already : Trademark protections will be valid for 10 years : Patents will be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, and new processes of using a known product." Exclusions: Countries can individually exclude surgical methods for the treatment of animals or humans, plants, animals, and biological processes for producing plants and animals from patentability : Patents for biologics will be for a minimum of five years : Copyright terms for performances or phonograms will be the life of the author plus 70 years. If the producer is a company, the copyright protecton will last for 70 years. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs, May 12, 2015. YouTube: by Additional Reading Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Article: by Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic (re-posted on USA Today), June 21, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Article: by Amarendra Bhushan, CEO World Magazine, August 27, 2014. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD114: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Investment Chapter

10 januari 2016 | 63 min

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is finished and will be eligible for a vote in Congress in February 2016. In December, the Democrats held a hearing on the Investment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this episode, highlights from that hearing and a summary of the provisions in one of the TPP's most important chapters. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), December 2, 2015. Deputy Director and Adjunct Professor of law at the Harrison Institute for Public Law, Georgetown University Law Center Served on the during the Obama Administration Parter at , an international corporate law firm with 9 offices in the United States and 11 offices outside the country (see for list of clients) Served in the Office of the US Trade Representatives and on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration Served on the during the Obama Administration Vice President of during the George W. Bush administration Was a as an Associate at Sidley Austin during the George W. Bush administration's early years Was on the Democratic staff of the US Senate Committee on Finance during the early Obama administration years. Former staffer to former Rep. Earl Pomeroy for over nine years. Deputy Chief of Staff, , which represents 12.5 million American workers. Vice Chairwoman of the during the Obama Administration Investment Chapter Highlights : Countries can't treat companies from other countries any differently than they treat companies from their own : Countries must provide police protection to foreign companies : Removal of subsidies does not count as a violation of the treaty, even if the company is financially harmed : Countries can nationalize their assets if they pay the companies with interest : Countries can not require companies to use domestic goods or to buy products from within the country ("Buy American") : Conflicts between multinational companies and TPP countries will be settled through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system : There is a statute of limitations of three years, six months from when the company should have known a "breach" occurred : The three judges will be selected by the company and the government involved (one each) and the third one either agreed upon or appointed by the : The tribunal can award attorney's fees to the case winner : The burden of proof lies with the company making the claim : ISDS tribunal documents will be available to the public : Puts limits on the awards Sound Clip Sources YouTube Video: , February 15, 2015. Additional Reading Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Alexandra Stevenson, New York Times, October 15, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Op-Ed: by Rep. Ron Kind, LaCrosse Tribune, April 13, 2015 Article: , The Canadian Press, March 20, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Report: , United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, June 26, 2013. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD113: CISA is Law

27 december 2015 | 52 min

Cybersecurity or surveillance? What does the language attached at the last minute to the 2,009 page omnibus government funding bill actually authorize? In this episode, we take a close look at what just became law. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 was attached at the last minute to the "omnibus" government funding bill, which was 2,009 pages long and available to read for less than three days before it became law. This is and outline of what became law: "": "Any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of Government" Does NOT include the Government Accountability Office, Federal Election Commission, or Government-owned contractor-operated facilities "": An action that "may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system". "": "Information that is necessary to describe or identify"... Spying, including strange patterns of communications that appear to be collecting technical information Security breaches Security vulnerabilities A legitimate user being used to defeat a security system Malicious cyber command and control "The actual or potential harm caused by an incident, including a description of the information exfiltrated as a result of a particular cybersecurity threat" "Any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat, if disclosure of such attribute is not otherwise prohibited by law" "": "Any , non-Federal government agency or department, or State, tribal, or local government (including a political subdivision, department, or component thereof)" Does not include a foreign power, Procedures for sharing information both within and outside the Federal government will be created by: Director of National Intelligence Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary of Defense Attorney General ... Allow real time sharing of information Include requirements for the government to protect the information from unauthorized access Require Federal entities to review cyber threat indicators for information not directly related to the threat that contains information that identifies a specific individual and remove the information Include procedures for notifying "any United States person" whose information has been shared by the Federal government Non-Federal entities sharing information mush "review" the information for "personal information of a specific individual" and "remove such information" OR have a technical way of removing the information it "knows at the time of sharing" to be personal information. and can use the information they receive for... Cybersecurity Preventing a specific threat of death, serious bodily harm, or specific threat of serious economic harm Investigating, prosecuting, and preventing serious threats to minors, including sexual exploitation and threats to physical safety ... , , , , Information shared will be Policies will be written by... Attorney General Secretary of Homeland Security Policies must create a way to share information "" Dept. of Commerce Dept. of Defense Dept. of Energy Dept. of Homeland Security Dept. of Justice Dept. of Treasury Office of the Director of National Intelligence Information ... Attorney General Secretary of Homeland Security In consultation with the "Private entities with industry expertise as the Attorney General and the Secretary consider relevant" Information shared with the Federal government The courts must dismiss any lawsuits against "any private entity" for monitoring information systems or sharing/receiving "cyber threat indicators" Heads of "appropriate Federal entities" will submit a report Inspectors General of the "appropriate Federal entities" will submit reports every two years The Comptroller General of the United States will submit a report on actions taken by the Federal Government to remove personal information. Report will be due in three years. Unclassified portions of the reports will be available to the public. Lists what this bill is not intended to do Report will be submitted by the Director of National Intelligence NEW Specifically allows the Secretary of Defense to share information These provisions expire on September 30, 2015. The will for sharing information that are created by Title I (view this mark-up of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to see changes made by this provision) including... "Engaging with international partners... to collaborate on cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, and information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents" "Sharing cyber threat indicators, defensive measures, and other information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents with Federal and non-Federal entities... and with State and major urban area fusion centers" Participating in national exercises run by DHS Evaluating cyber threats to public safety communication systems to the list of entities that will have representatives in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center Adds protection from information to list of the Center's Orders the Center to work with the to make sure the Center follows the policies and procedures created by the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security. The Center will be in charge of for information sharing. The Center for the purpose of sharing "cyber threat indicators" Orders the Center to with the Center within 60 days of enactment : Reports that will Subtitle B: Federal Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2015 Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to to proactively detect, identify, and remove intruders in agency information systems. The plan will not apply to the Department of Defense, a "national security system" or an element of the intelligence community In implementing the plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security The operation of the technology needed to implement the plan The actions taken need to be It is for the private entity operating the system to use the information for anything other than protecting the system but the The Secretary of Homeland Security will issue binding operational directives for agencies to secure their networks within a year. Agencies will have to... Identify sensitive and mission critical data stored by the agency Assess the need to store that data and determine which individuals need access to it Encrypt the data Implement a single sign-on platform for people using the agency website that requires user authentication Require multi-factor authentication for remote access Agencies will not have to comply if they say it's "overly burdensome to implement" or that it's not necessary. These binding operational directives to the Defense Department, a "national security system", or the intelligence community. The directives and reports on them will expire in 7 years, December 2022. The Secretary of Homeland Security can order the head of other agencies to take "lawful actions" in response to security threats. Requires an assessment of all Federal positions that have cyber-related functions Orders a study on the security of mobile devices of the Federal Government Orders a State Department report on threats from foreign sources and cooperation strategies within 90 days. The Secretary of State must consult with government officials in countries where we don't have an extradition treaty to determine what actions they've taken to catch "cyber criminals" with arrest warrant issued by US judges or Interpol. Orders the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to create a process for information sharing with Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Requires a report that will so that "the Federal Government and health care industry stakeholders may in real time, share actionable cyber threat indicators and defensive measures" Additional Reading Article: by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, December 16, 2015. Article: by Tom Cahill, U.S. Uncut, December 19, 2015. Article: by Eric Lipton and Liz Moyer, New York Times, December 20, 2015. Article: by Mike Gault, Wired, December 20, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD112: Dingle-berries on the Omnibus (2016)

20 december 2015 | 99 min

Available for less than 3 days before the votes, the 2,009 page "omnibus" government funding bill was signed into law. History will not look kindly upon provisions that give private companies immunity for forwarding data to the government, make policing political contributions illegal, repeal a food labeling law, restrict international travel, and allow environmental damage. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Omnibus Outline Prohibits the FDA from clarifying foods with partially hydrogenated oils as unsafe before June 18, 2018. Repeals Country of Origin Labels for beef and pork products Prohibits the sale of genetically engineered salmon until the FDA publishes final labeling guidelines and sets aside at least $150,000 for the labeling program. Prohibits the government from prohibiting the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp Department of Justice money can’t be used to pay for an abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger - this is valid unless declared unconstitutional The Director of the Bureau of Prisons will have to provide escort services to female names to get an abortion outside the Federal facility. “None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the use of toruture by any official or contract employee of the United States Government” A national security letter can’t be used by the Executive branch to stop the FBI from issuing national security letters Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prison inmates to the United States : Prohibits the transfer of Internet domain name system functions during fiscal year 2016 Prohibits Dept. of Justice money from being used to prevent States from implementing their medical marijuana laws. : Puts no limit on the compensation for foreign people working at the Department of Defense in the Republic of Turkey Prevents demilitarization and disposal of certain guns A “buy local” requirement for military purchases of beer and wine : Says information pertaining to US citizens will only be handled according to the 4th amendment “as implemented through Executive Order No. 12333” Prohibits the retirement, divestment, realignment, or transfer of RQ-4B Global Hawk aircraft Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prison inmates to the United States Prohibits realignment of forces at Lajes Air Force Base in Azores, Portugal unless determined that it is not “an optimal location for the Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex” Prohibits the NSA from conducting “an acquisition” using FISA 702 “for the purpose of targeting a United States person” or from acquiring, monitoring or storing the contents of “any electronic communication” of a US person from a provider of electronic communication services to the public, as determined by FISA 501 Prohibits retirement of A-10 aircraft Prohibits retirement of KC-10 aircraft Prohibits retirement of EC-130 H aircraft Prohibits any base closures Allows the Defense Department to transfer an additional $4.5 billion to the War on Terror fund Department of Defense “operation and maintenance” money can be used in Afghanistan and to counter ISIL Prohibits permanent bases in Iraq, control of Iraqi oil, permanent bases in Afghanistan $600 million for Jordan $250 million for Ukraine for “assistance, including training, equipment, lethal weapons of a defensive nature… and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine and for the replacement of any weapons or defensive articles provided to the Government of Ukraine from the inventory of the United States" Money can’t be used in Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution including the introduction of United States armed or military forces into hostilities in Syria without consulting and reporting to Congress Prohibits any changes to the “fill material” in waterways definition : Prohibits permits from being required for discharges of “fill material” ection 312: Prohibits implementation of energy efficient lightbulb regulations : Can’t redesign the $1 bill Prohibits any change to regulations and standards used by the IRS "to determine whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for the purposes of section 501(c)(4)” Prohibits money paying for any health plans for Federal employees that cover abortions Section 614: Unless the life of the mother is at risk or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest Defunds White House positions Director, White House Office of Health Reform Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy White House Direction of Urban Affairs Prohibits the government from requiring a telecom from turning over data it is storing : Prohibits implementation of safety standards for recreational off-highway vehicles Customs and Border Protection can’t stop an individual from importing prescription drugs from Canada if they are carrying 90 day supply or less Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prison inmates to the United States Prohibits listing of the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t say “for fiscal year 2016” Prohibits acceptance of patents for mining sites Some patents are grandfathered Prevents mining within National Monuments No money can be used to require permits for emitting carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions from livestock production. Prohibits regulations requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. Prohibits regulation of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle Prohibits implementation of a regulation for minimum wages for seasonal workers : Prohibits enforcement of regulations designed to audit companies that use foreign workers Prohibits the promotion of gun control : Prohibits bussing of kids to overcome racial imbalances Forces public schools to allow voluntary prayer and meditation programs : Prohibits funding for research that creates, destroys, or injures human embryos : Prohibits funds for ACORN Military Construction and Veterans Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prison inmates to the United States : Dept. of State for the “Foreign Military Financing Program”, $3.1 billion to Isreal, to Egypt, for Jordan, for Ukraine : No money can be given directly to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Syria Rules for financing governments after military coups Money can be used to “establish governance in Syria that is representative, inclusive, and accountable” Increased US quota of the IMF fund to 40.8 billion Special Drawing Rights (SDR), about $55 billion as of 12/17 exchange rates Continues of a regulation limiting commercial truck drivers to 60 or 70 hours per week. Limits the information the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will have access to Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prison inmates to the United States Outline Coming Soon (CD113) Repeals the oil export ban “Terrorist Travel Prevention and Visa Waiver Program Reform” Requires people from countries participating in our visa waiver program to have machine readable, electronic passports to enter the US by April 1, 2016. Should have been available since 2005, but people with older passports didn’t need new ones. Now they will : Visas will be required from anyone who traveled to Iraq or Syria and possibly other countries since March 2011 Doesn’t apply to military members or government employees Reauthorizes health program for 9/11 WTC responders through Reauthorizes and expands 9/11 victim fund to include damages to business and employment opportunities Does include mental health care Increases visa fees until September 30, 2025 for businesses who bring in foreign employees by about $4,000 $1 billion will be used to “implement the ”, which will keep track of everyone’s exit and entry data electronically Creates a new program to give money to some victims of terrorism Money will be handed out by a “Special Master” appointed by the Attorney General will be “final” and “not subject to administrative or judicial review” Eligible people are US “persons” who won a court case against a “state sponsor of terrorism” Victims of the Iran Hostage Crisis will get $10,000 per day they were held, and their spouses and kids will get a lump sum of $600,000, with a maximum payment of $20 million per person and $35 million per family. The President will demand the payment from the offending country before sanctions can be lifted will be given out during 2017, and the fund will close on January 2, 2026. Attorneys can get 25% of the payments Act of international terrorism = torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking Has something to do with exemptions and Wall Street : “None of the funds made available by any division of this Act shall bemused by the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize, issue, or implement any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax exempt organization, or dues paid to trade associations” : Repeals an exemption for the SEC from the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which allowed them to get financial records from banks without the customer’s knowledge The budgetary effects of the “Other Matters” division and the Division P tax provisions will not be counted in the PayGo budget Delays the excise tax on high cost employer health plans until 2019. Puts a moratorium on a fee on health insurance providers Extends until 2020 and fades out tax credits for wind facilities Extends until 2022 and fades out tax credits for solar energy Votes Passed the House of Representatives Passed the Senate Audio Sources House Rules Committee Hearing: , December 16, 2015. Additional Information Article: by Ezra Klein, Vox, December 18, 2015. Article: by Bill Chappell, NPR, December 18, 2015. Article: by Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept, December 18, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD111: Fall 2015 Overview

13 december 2015 | 64 min

Three months of Congress condensed into under one hour. In this episode, we take a look at our new laws, some controversial bills, and the most interesting hearings from September, October, and November. This episode is also a call for feedback: Which hearings sound most interesting to you? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Hearings Worth Watching Please email your top 2 hearing requests to Jen at congressional dish dot com or Tweet them to House Ways and Means Committee: , November 17, 2015. Witnesses Dr. Joshua Meltzer, Senior Fellow in Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution Alexander von Bismarck, Executive Director, Environmental Investigation Agency Ilana Solomon, Responsible Trade Program Director, Sierra Club Dr. Rashid Sumaila, Professor, Fisheries Economics Unit of the University of British Columbia House Ways and Means Committee: , December 2, 2015 Witnesses: Matt Porterfield, Deputy Director and Adjunct Professor, Harrison Institute, Georgetown University Law Center Ted Posner, Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Michael Smart, Vice President, Rock Creek Global Advisors LLC Thea Lee, Deputy Chief of Staff, AFL-CIO House Committee on Armed Services: Witnesses: John McLaughlin, Former Acting Direction of Central Intelligence Ambassador Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Syria and Iraq House Committee on Foreign Affairs: , November 17, 2015 Witnesses Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired: U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic, U.S. Department of State Rear Admiral Timothy C. Gallaudet, USN: Oceanographer and NavigatorU.S. Department of Defense Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, USCG: Vice CommandantU.S. Department of Homeland Security Senate Armed Services Committee: , November 4, 2015. Witnesses: Director (Former) National Security Agency Bryan Clark Senior Fellow Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Paul Scharre Senior Fellow and Director Center for a New American Security->20YY Warfare Initiative Peter W. Singer Senior Fellow New America House Committee on Agriculture: , November 4, 2015. Witnesses , Vice-Chairman, Dr. Tammy Beckham: Dean, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: , October 21, 2015 House Committee on Energy and Commerce: , October 28, 2015. Witnesses: The Honorable Michael Lumpkin, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict The Honorable Matthew Armstrong, Broadcasting Board of Governors Brigadier General Charles Moore, Joint Staff, J-39 House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: , October 6, 2015. House Committee on Armed Services: , October 22, 2015. Committee on Energy & Commerce: , September 25, 2015. National Emergencies Extended National Emergency in respect to Sudan, National Emergency in respect to the attacks of September 11, 2001, National Emergency in respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, . Links to Laws, Bills, & Hearings Campaign Contribution Info Additional Reading IMF document: , International Monetary Fund, June 29, 2006. Article: by Kenneth Fidler, US AFRICOM Public Affairs, April 27, 2009. Article: by Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, Foreign Affairs Magazine, November 28, 2011. Research Paper: by Patrick Thronson, University of Michigan's Journal of Law Reform, March 23, 2013. Article: by James Bamford, Wired Magazine, June 12, 2013. Article: by John Hudson, Foreign Policy Magazine, July 14, 2013. Article: by Gregory Korte, USA Today, October 23, 2014. Article: Reuters, October 23, 2015. Article: by Daniel Vock, Governing, October 29, 2015. Article: by Daniel Vock, Governing, November 17, 2015. Article: by Bart Jansen, USA Today, December 3, 2015. Article: by Daniel Vock, GovTech.com, December 3, 2015. Article: by Cory Bennett, The Hill, December 7, 2015. Website: , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD110: Government Funding Crisis of 2015

6 december 2015 | 75 min

Government shutdown ahead! On December 11th, the government is scheduled to run out of money. In this episode, hear the story of how we ended up on the brink of a shutdown (again) and what you can expect in the next few weeks (hint: A huge must-sign bill that includes lots of corporate favors). We also take a look at the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed into law in November, which raised the debt ceiling and set the overall budget amount for the giant government funding bill to come. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bipartisan Budget Act Outline : The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Budget Enforcement 2016: $548 billion for security, $518 billion for non-security 2017: $551 billion for security, $518 billion for non-security 2016 & 2017 for for Agriculture for private insurance providers at 8.9% of the premium through 2026. For context, please listen to Commerce to cell phones for collecting US government debts Strategic Petroleum Reserve from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 5 million barrels a year through 2022 8 million barrels in 2022 10 million barrels a year from 2023 through 2025 Pensions pension fund premiums that employers must pay starting in 2017. Health Care 2016 premiums for Medicare Part B by adding a $3 surcharge for future years. drug manufacturers a rebate if they increase their prices for generic drugs more than the rate of inflation. Starting on January 1, 2017, Medicare will for services provided in a hospital and services provided outside the hospital. Facilities that were billing as hosptitals before the enactment of this law . the automatic enrollment of employees in employer provided health insurance plans. Judicial penalties for health care providers accused of fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid system. in the Crime Victims Fund $746 million in civil forfeiture money from the Justice Department piggy bank. Social Security "disability investigation units" with partner with local law enforcement to ensure they exist in all 50 states and all territories. penalties for social security fraud the "file and suspend" option for social security benefits Temporary extension of public debt limit the debt ceiling until March 16, 2017. Spectrum Pipeline Creates a plan for federal wireless spectrum to telecommunications corporations by January 2022. Revenue provisions related to tax compliance for large corporations, hedge funds, and private equity funds. Audio Sources Hearing: , House Rules Committee, October 27, 2015. Additional Reading Article: by Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh, CNN, September 30, 2015. Article: by Devlin Barrett, The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2016. Article: by Wes Wolfe, The Free Press, November 3, 2015. Article: by Karl Fryzel and Michael Conroy, Lock Lord LLP, November 3, 2015. Article: by John Schoen, CNBC, November 5, 2015. Article: by Lisa Schencker, Modern Healthcare, November 9, 2015. Article: by Robert Powell, USA Today, November 28, 2015. Article: by Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan, Politico, December 2, 2015. Sources Report: , Congressional Budget Office, October 28, 2015. Report: Social Security Solutions, November 5, 2015. Report: by Juliette Cubanski and Tricia Neuman, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, November 11, 2015. Newsletter: , McDermott, Will & Emery, October 29, 2105. Webpage: Webpage: by Zachary Paiker, FactCheck,org, February 7, 2014. Webpage: by Rachel Finkel, FactCheck.org, March 3, 2014. Webpage: , Opensecrets.org Jen's Podcast Appearance : December 7, 2015 episode Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD109: Know Your GMO with Cara Santa Maria

29 november 2015 | 100 min

joins Jen to discuss a House of Representatives passed bill which creates a national system for labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and prohibits states from enacting their own GMO labeling laws. Follow Cara on Twitter: Like Cara on Facebook: Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The Bill : Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 the Federal government to require labels for genetically modified plants if the government determines there is a difference in nutrition, allergic reactions, or to protect public health. the sale of non-regulated genetically modified plants unless the Secretary of Heath and Human Services certifies that the food is safe for humans and animals. the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a list of and information discovered about each non-regulated genetically modified plant that has been approved for sale on a public website. to imported food "non-regulated genetically engineered plant" as one contains genetic material from a different species or has been modified through DNA altering techniques. States from creating or continuing "any requirement" that is different from the regulations created by this bill. private companies to certify whether genetically modified plants are present in food products. a voluntary program for labeling genetically modified foods. , the seed must not be genetically modified and the crop must be separated during growth, harvesting, storage, and transportation. For livestock, the food fed to the livestock must not have contained any genetically modified products. The labels that Non-GMO foods are safer or better than GMO foods. Anyone who uses the Non-GMO label on GMO foods will be . Each day the violation occurs will be considered a separate violation. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by of Kansas Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, June 18, 2015. Witnesses: : President and CEO Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals : Director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Biotechnology Project YouTube: from Jimmy Kimmel Live, October 9, 2014. Additional Information Joe Rogan Experience #655 with GMO scientist Kevin Folta Upcoming Meet-Up Hang out with Jen at the Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD108: Regime Change

22 november 2015 | 57 min

Syria: We're told we're at war to fight ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State but in a Congressional hearing that took place the week before the Paris attacks, State Department officials were talking about a different goal. In this episode, highlights from that House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. What are we really doing in Syria? Executive Producer: Anonymous Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The Syria War For context and background, please listen to , from August 2013. Audio Sources Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015. Video: YouTube: , PressTV News Video, November 19, 2015. YouTube: by YouTube: , Additional Information Syria Map: , June 24, 2015. Map: , U.S. Department of Energy, updated June 24, 2015. Article: by Elena Holodny, Business Insider, September 29, 2015. Map: , Business Insider, September 29, 2015 Article: by Micah Zenko, The Foreign Policy Group, October 19, 2015. Paris Attacks Article: by Ian Black, The Guardian, November 14, 2015. Article: by David Graham, The Atlantic, November 15, 2015. ISIS Message about Paris Attacks: "Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, and dare to curse our Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes, which did not help them at all in the streets of Paris and its rotten alleys" Article: by Alissa Rubin and Anne Barnard, November 15, 2015. Anne Patterson Biography Wikipedia: Article: by Josh Rogin and Eli Lake, The Daily Beast, July 10, 2013. Article: by Juan Forero, New York Times, August 17, 2001. Victoria Nuland Biography Wikipedia: Essay: by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, Foreign Affairs Magazine (published by The Council on Foreign Relations), July/August 1996 Issue Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD107: New Laws & Veterans’ Health Care

15 november 2015 | 60 min

Good news can be found in this episode! In July, eight bills were signed into law and none of them will make you want to flee the country. Topics covered include veterans and their health care, product warranties, transportation funding, and more. At the end of the episode, Jen shares some happy news. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Laws : Veterans Identification Card Act of 2015 US Department of Veterans' Affairs Info Sheet: Discussed in veterans who have honorably completed their service but who didn't "retire" or receive a medically-related discharge to request and pay for an ID card proving their veteran status. The fee for the card will be reassessed every . The cards would be available the bill would be signed into law. Passed the House of Representatives . Passed the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent Sponsored by of Florida : Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Discussed in episode Gives the Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland Security the job of making sure that DHS departments can communicate with each other in emergencies. Passed the House of Representatives . Passed the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent. Passed the House of representatives with Senate changes by Voice Vote. Sponsored by of New Jersey : Medicare Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act of 2015 Discussed in episode Increases the length of Medicare contracts for at-home care from 3 years to 5 years Passed the Senate and House of Representatives by Voice Votes. Sponsored by of Oregon : Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act Passed the House of Representatives by Voice Vote. Passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent a process for temporary employees at Federal land management agencies to become permanent employees age requirements for eligibility for temporary employees seeking to become permanent employees. Sponsored by of Virginia : E-Warranty Act of 2015 manufacturers to provide warranty information online, the warranty information is available at the location of the sale so people can see it before they buy. Passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Passed the House of Representatives The two no votes were Rep. Dan Benishek of Michigan's 1st district and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina's 3rd district. Sponsored by : Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 Passed the House of Representatives . Passed the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent. Passed the House of Representatives with Senate changes by Voice Vote. the Small Business Administration from charging a guarantee fee on loans made to veterans or their spouses. When the program doesn't pay for itself in the President's budget proposal, the fee can be charged to veteran's and their spouses the next year. the amount of money than can be spent on business loans by $4.75 billion. loan guarantees from being used by banks to get around their legal lending limits. Sponsored by of Ohio : Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act land in Idaho as wilderness areas. that was already taking place to continue. Passed the House of Representatives by Voice Vote. Passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Sponsored by of Idaho : Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 Transportion Federal highway funding until October 29, 2015. the tax rate for liquified petroleum gas . Banking the banks to report more information about the status of mortgages starting in 2017. the value of a deceased person's estate to the estimate on the deceased person's most recent tax return. the tax return due date for partnerships and S corporations Veterans the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to develop a plan to consolidate all non-Department of Veteran's Affairs provider programs into one program called the "Veteran's Choice Program". money to the fund for private health care for veterans, including $500 million for hepatitis C drugs the text of the , which said that veterans with government health care will not count towards the 50 employee Affordable Care Act threshold, which triggers a company's obligation to give employees health insurance. Passed the House of Representatives . Passed the Senate . Sponsored by of Pennsylvania Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Veterans' Affairs Committee, July 22, 2015. Additional Reading from Senators Ron Wyden and Charles Grassley to the Chairman and CEO of Gilead Sciences for justification of high Sovaldi price. Article: by Joseph Bebon, Next-Gen Transportation News, July 31, 2015. Article: by Gerard Flynn, Newsweek, May 9, 2015. Article: by Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic (re-posted on USA Today), June 21, 2015. Article: by Gardiner Harris, New York Times, September 15, 2014. Article: by Margot Sanger-Katz, New York Times, August 2, 2104. Article: by Jaimy Lee, Modern Healthcare, February 3, 2015. Article: by Caroline Chen, Bloomberg Business, July 28, 2015. Article: by David Belk, Huffington Post, February 9, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

CD106: CISA and Friends

8 november 2015 | 76 min

CISA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act - has officially passed the Senate. While Congress is busy merging CISA with two other so-called cybersecurity bills that passed the House of Representatives, in this episode, by taking an in-depth look at the contents of all three bills, we discover that these bills are not what you're being lead to believe. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! : Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 Passed the Senate on October 27, 2015. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina Outline of the Bill Definitions: = "Any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency, but does not include — The Government Accountability Office Federal Election Commission The governments of the District of Columbia and of the territories and possessions of the United States, and their various subdivisions Government-owned contractor-operated facilities, including laboratories engaged in national defense research and production activities = An action "not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution" that "may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system." A "cybersecurity threat" does not include "any action that soley involves a violation of a consumer term of service or a consumer licensing agreement. = Information that is needed to identify - , including strange patterns of communications that appear to be collecting technical information Security breaches Security vulnerabilities A legitimate user being used to defeat a security system The harm caused by a cybersecurity incident, including the information taken as a result "Any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat, if disclosure of such attribute is not otherwise prohibited by law" = "Any , non-Federal government agency or department, or State, tribal, or local government (including a political subdivision, department, or component thereof) Does not include "a "foreign power", a foreign government or a foreign based political organization. Sharing of Information by the Federal Government will write procedures for sharing and "cyber threat indicators" and that would help the "entities" to prevent cybersecurity threats. The officials writing the rules will be the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General. The rules they write have to: Ensure "cyber threat indicators" can be Include notification procedures for false alarms Include requirements for the Federal government agencies to to the information Requires a Federal entity sharing information to Include for people whose personal information is shared by the government. Their procedures 60 days after CISA becomes law. Monitoring Authorizations Private companies their own information systems, other private information systems or Federal information systems with permission, and monitor "information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting these information systems" Entities can share with and receive information from . Before sharing information, it and information known to be personal information "at the time of the sharing" must be removed. With the written consent of the sharing entity, information shared with a State, tribal, or local government may be used for ...* , , , , The information shared with the government as a "cyber threat indicator" will be . for sharing information with each other "for cybersecurity purposes" Sharing of Information by "Entities" with the Federal Government The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security governing receipt of information from private entities and local governments. The policies must include... for sharing information with "all of the appropriate Federal entities" Rules governing of the information received by the Federal Government. for Federal employees who break the law The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland will explaining what qualifies as a cyber threat indicator The Attorney General, with help from "private entities", will have 180 days that will govern how the Federal Government uses the information it receives The privacy guidelines will be reviewed every two years The Attorney General will determine how long the information will be kept by the government The shared with the government. Information shared under the Freedom of Information Act and all State, tribal, and local laws. In addition to the items of the list of allowed uses of information by State, tribal, and local governments (see Monitoring Authorizations section), the Federal Government can also use the information to... Protection from Liability for sharing information with the government under CISA regulations. The only way a private entity can be sued is in the cast of "gross negligence or willful misconduct" Oversight of Government Activities Federal Inspectors General will complete a . The report may include recommendations for improvement Other Rules , attempting to monopolize a market, boycotting, or exchanges of price or cost information, customer lists, or information regarding future competitive planning. Intrusion Assessment Plan The Secretary of Homeland Security will to identify and remove intruders on agency information systems. The plan will not apply to the Department of Defense, a national security system or an element of the intelligence community. The deployment and operation of the new monitoring system The private contractor would not be allowed to disclose any of the information they access The private contractor will have Internet service providers with a customer without their customer's consent The activities carried out in this new monitoring plan need to be to protect agency information systems from cybersecurity risks Federal Cybersecurity Requirements Agencies will have to information that is stored or transmitted by their information systems, create a single sign-in method for individuals accessing their websites, and implement identity management systems for remote access for each user account. This to the Department of Defense, a national security system, or elements of the intelligence community. Emergencies The Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of an "imminent threat" Study on Mobile Device Security The Secretary of Homeland Security in the Federal Government Health Care Industry Sharing to create a plan for sharing with private health care entities specifically Strategy for Protecting Critical Infrastructure ensuring that cyber security incidents would probably not be catastrophic for public health or safety, economic security, or national security. The strategy must include... An assessment of whether each entity should be required to report cyber security incidents A description of security gaps Additional power needed Some of this report can be classified. Sunset The provisions of this bill would : National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 For reference, here's the of the Homeland Security Act, which is amended by this bill. This bill: to the that will be part of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which coordinates information sharing between the Federal government and other entities. Adds new groups to the list of who will be included in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center who . that the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center will share between the Federal government, local governments, and private sector. Authorizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to . Requires the government and businesses to use existing technology between the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and Federal agencies. Participation by non-Federal entities . Agreements that exist before this bill is signed into law with this law. All participating entities need to take . There's no listed punishments if they don't. for governing the use of information shared with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center . He/she will also be responsible for for government employees who disregard his/her privacy policies. entities that share information , if they share information according to this law. If the Federal government breaks this law, it will have to pay the person . There is a two year statute of limitations. This law that limit information sharing. The law would after enactment. Passed Sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas : Protecting Cyber Networks Act Contains the text of H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act Within of enactment, the for sharing classified "cyber threat indicators" with "non-Federal entities" Allows cybersecurity monitoring of government systems Allows "non-Federal entities" to other than the Defense Department. The entity sharing information must to remove personally identifiable information on people "not directly related" to the cybersecurity threat. governing what happens to information received by the Federal Government, of the bill becoming law. relating to privacy and civil liberties, within of the bill becoming law. A new branch, with , will be created within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, which will Information shared with the government is . Information given to the government to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat of "death or serious bodily harm or an offense arising out of such a threat" and to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat to a minor. to prevent, investigation, disrupt, or prosecute , , including murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, extortion, firearms use, firearms possession, or attempt to commit any of these crimes, including photographing or sketching defense installations, and . Passed Sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes of California Audio Sources CISA debate, October 27, 2015 () : Hearing about HR 1731 and HR 1560, the House cybersecurity bills, April 21, 2015 Additional Information Article: by Eric Geller, The Daily Dot, October 28, 2015. Webpage: , Department of Homeland Security. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD105: Anthrax

1 november 2015 | 94 min

In July, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that would allow expiring anthrax vaccines to be given to civilian emergency responders within the United States. The question: Is that vaccine safe? In this episode, we look at the history of the anthrax vaccine and the results of the investigation into the only anthrax attack on the United States: The anthrax laced letters which were mailed to members of the mainstream media and Congress in September and October 2001. Last, an update on the current security of the United States' anthrax supplies. Warning: This episode contains disturbing information. Executive Producer: Brandon Shipley Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The Bill : First Responder Anthrax Preparedness Act Summary: . for distributing anthrax vaccines that will soon expire to emergency responders who volunteer to accept them. a program for tracking the vaccines. a two year pilot program, in at least two states, for distributing the vaccines. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by of New York Additional Reading Anthrax Vaccine Website: , Emergent BioSolutions. Article: by Warren Leary, New York Times, May 7, 1994. Article: by Laura Rozen, Salon, October 14, 2001. Report: by Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center, December 2001. Article: by Michael Smith, The Telegraph, August 12, 2004. FDA Document: by Meryl Nass MD, December 29, 2004. Report: by Martin Meyer Weiss, MD, Peter D. Weiss, MD, and Joseph B. Weiss, MD, American Journal of Public Health, November 2007. Article: by Diana Washington Valdez, El Paso Times (republished on Military.com), April 21, 2014. Report: by Frank Gottron, Congressional Research Service, June 18, 2014. Report: Website: , OpenSecrets.org Website: , OpenSecrets.org 2001 Anthrax Attacks Article: by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William J. Broad, New York Times, September 4, 2001. Article: by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal and R. James Woolsey (reprinted by Free Republic), October 17, 2001. Article: by Richard Cohen, Washington Post, October 18, 2001. Article: by Richard Butler, New York Times, October 18, 2001. Article: by Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, October 24, 2001. Article: by Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, August 6, 2008. Article: by Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, August 8, 2008. Department of Justice Report: , U.S. Department of Justice, February 19, 2010. Press Release: , U.S. Department of Justice, February 19, 2010. F.B.I. Document Directory: Article: , NPR, February 15, 2011. Article: by Noah Shachtman, Wired, March 24, 2011. Article: by Nicholaus Mills, The Guardian, September 15, 2011. Article: by Stephen Engelberg of ProPublica, Greg Gordon of McClatchy, Jim Gilmore and Mike Wiser of PBS Frontline, October 10, 2011. Article: by Stephen Engelberg of ProPublica, Greg Gordon of McClatchy, Jim Gilmore and Mike Wiser of PBS Frontline, October 10, 2011. GAO Report: , Government Accountability Office, December 2014. Article: by Rebecca Trager, Scientific American, December 29, 2014. Article: , CNN, May 23, 2015. The Patriot Act Article: by John Lancaster, The Washington Post, October 3, 2001. Article: by Paul Blumenthal, Sunlight Foundation, March 2, 2009. Live Anthrax Shipments Article: by Paul Shinkman, US News & World Report, May 27, 2015. Article: by Richard Sisk, Military.com, September 1, 2015. Audio/Video Sources Press Conference: , Department of Defense, (broadcast on C-SPAN), June 28, 2002. Press Conference with Dr. Steven Hatfill: , C-SPAN, August 25, 2002. United Nations Security Council Meeting: , United Nations Security Council (broadcast on C-SPAN), February 5, 2003. Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee (broadcast on C-SPAN), September 16, 2008. Hearing: , Senate Judiciary Committee (broadcast on C-SPAN), September 17, 2008. YouTube: , uploaded July 7, 2009. Press Conference: , National Academy of Sciences (broadcast on C-SPAN), February 15, 2011. Television Episode: by PBS Frontline, October 11, 2011. Hearing: , House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (broadcast on C-SPAN), July 28, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD103: Crazy Busy June

30 september 2015 | 122 min

More bills than anyone could possible read were passed by a branch of Congress in June, including the 994 page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), four government funding bills, and thirty bills governing a wide range of topics, including Wall Street, MediCare, fishing, carbon dioxide emissions, stolen art, chemical storage, taxes, and more. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! New Congressman of Mississippi's 1st district was sworn into office Emergency the national emergency declared in on June 16, 2006 with respect to Belarus : Prospects for Belarus' Membership in the WTO by Anna Maria Dyner, The Polish Institute of International Affairs, July 31, 2013. Laws : USA Freedom Act Outlined and discussed in Congressional Dish : United States Cotton Futures Act : House Agriculture Committee, June 17, 2015. cotton from foreign companies from , which . on the futures exchange. Passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by voice votes Sponsored by of Georgia's 13th district , (stands for Intercontinental Exchange) which is a network of financial exchanges and clearing houses; it operates eleven exchanges, including three in the United States, Canada, and Europe that deal with agriculture futures. The company has ten lobbyists and has for the last Congressional election. In the last election cycle, ICE Group gave , and over the years, the company has given Rep. David Scott : DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act Makes the DHS about the department's technology and gives them to complete it. Passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by voice votes Sponsored by Rep. Will Hurd of Texas's 23rd district Bills : National Defense Authorization Act Passed the House of Representatives The version passed by the House of Representatives received a by President Obama Passed the Senate with changes Sponsored by Rep. Mac Thorneberry of Texas's 13th district Weird advertisement for the NDAA : Department of Defense Appropriations Act Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey's 11th district : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes of California's 22nd district : Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. John Culberson of Texas's 7th district : Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida's 25th district : Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act : House Rules Committee, May 19, 2015. for management of an overfished fishery so that there is no hard deadline () to replenish the fishery and adds exceptions, including one that . the amount of time an emergency regulation can adjust a fishery management plan. to the list of factors that need to be considered when creating catch limits and for some fish with short life spans. Regional Fishery Management Council meetings will have to be All requirements of the the National Environmental Policy Act and all related implementing regulations will be if the Regional Fishery Management Council completes a fishery impact statement. a pilot program for using electronic monitoring at fisheries. independent peer-reviewed analysis' of the quality of statistics collected on fishing populations and a requirement for for Gulf of Mexico red snapper for recreational and commercial fishermen that this law will trump the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act, and the Endangered Species Act the government from factoring in red snapper killer during the removal of offshore oil rigs when determining catch limits. the government from factoring fish caught by foreign vessels in the U.S. economic zone when determining catch limits. new guidelines be issued that will use nongovernmental sources for fisheries management decisions. Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Don Young of Alaska ; he has taken $9,000 from them for this election cycle as of 9/11/15. : Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 : House Rules Committee, June 23, 2015. Prohibits from being enforced filed within 60 days of the final rule's publication are complete. Exempts states from complying with a final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel powered plants if the Governor informs the EPA that the rule would Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky's 1st district His #1 and #2 industries for the upcoming election are Oil and Gas and Electric Utilities; as of 9/11/15. Over the course of his Congressional career, he has taken . : Commodity End-User Relief Act : House Rules Committee, June 2, 2015. operations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that can be enacted on futures commissions merchants seven more considerations (including alternatives to regulation) to the requirements of cost-benefit analysis of regulations. the CFTC cost benefit analysis to be reviewed by a judge. the traders to be regulated to challenge new CFTC rules directly to the US Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country. the subpoena power of the CFTC the that the CFTC be immune from lawsuits that arise from sharing data about swaps with domestic and foreign authorities and this change to July 21, 2010, the effective date of Dodd Frank Financial Reform. "a utility operations-related swap" to the list of swaps that can be traded, which gambling on the future of natural gas or electric generation, purchases, sales, supplies or delivery. traders from being classified and regulated as a "swaps dealer" if they trade less than $8 billion (). the number of financial models swaps dealers will be allowed to use to determine how much actual money they need to hold onto. Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Michael Conaway of Texas's 11th district His top contributor for the upcoming election is , which is a swaps clearing house; he received . His top 5 contributors over the course of his career are, in this order, the an international association of accountants, , a multinational corporation specializing in auditing and regulation compliance, , and even larger multinational corporation specializing in regulation compliance, , a portfolio of energy companies, and , the self-proclaimed "" multinational corporation that specializes in auditing and risk management. From these five companies, Conaway has taken . : Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2015 : House Rules Committee, June 16, 2015. the , which is designed to suggest solutions if Medicare costs get out of control. funding for the , , which is a 61% cut. Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Phil Roe of Tennessee's 1st district ; he has taken $435,088 as of 9/11/15. : Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015 : House Rules Committee, June 16, 2015. the The effects of this repeal on the budget that this will increase the budget deficit by $24.4 billion Passed the House of Representatives Received a from President Obama Sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota's 3rd district ; he has taken at least $654,929. His #4 contributing industry has been Health Professionals; from them, he has taken $622,645. : CBRN Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2015 the Office of Intelligence an Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security to share information and work with the Intelligence community to analyze possible chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks. the Department of Homeland Security to share information related to terrorist attacks with the public. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. of Arizona's 2nd district : DOTCOM Act of 2015 : NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions, March 14, 2014. the transition of NTIA's functions in Internet domain name registry until 30 days after a report is submitted. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois's 15th district : TSCA Modernization Act a requirement that EPA use the "least burdensome requirements" when regulating toxic chemicals the EPA to do risk evaluations on chemicals used, stored, sold or disposed of by commercial companies. The risk evaluations consider cost If the risk evaluation is requested by a manufacturer, the for the risk assessment The EPA to do at least 10 risk assessments per year "subject to the availability of appropriations". for "replacement parts" from the EPA rules prohibiting chemicals unless the replacement parts "contribute significantly to the identified risk". the requirement that any rules created "shall provide for a reasonable transition period." the requirement for an informal hearing when making rules about toxic chemicals. if the requirement is , if it would The exemption would be valid for The exemption on the use of the toxic chemical data to be shared with State, local, or tribal governments and with health care professionals to assist with diagnosis or treatment. companies that want to keep information confidential to explain their reasons and automatically releases the information to the public in 10 years, unless the company justifies the confidentiality again in writing. caps of fees that can be collected and creates a to collect, store, and disperse the funds to pay for the EPA's costs for regulating chemicals. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois's 15th district : DHS FOIA Efficiency Act of 2015 the Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to update Freedom of Information Act regulations within 90 days of the bill's passage. the Chief FOIA Officer to identify the total annual cost of implementing the FOIA within 90 days. the Chief FOIA Officer to identify unnecessary actions taken in the course of processing requests and eliminate them within a year of identifying them. the Chief FOIA Officer to develop a plan to to process requests electronically. the Chief FOIA Officer to issue guidance to the necessary people to reach the goal of reducing the FOIA request backlog by 50 percent by 2018. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia's 1st district : Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act until 2020 to provide technical assistance to small public water systems. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi : Water Resources Research Amendments Act a requirement for additional research into new water treatments into the Water Resources Research Act an evaluation of water resource research projects every three years and withdraws funds from projects that do not qualify based on the evaluation. $13.5 million per year through 2020. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland : United States Grain Standards Act Reauthorization Act of 2015 the Department of Agriculture's process for grain inspections until September 30, 2020. the Secretary of Agriculture to waive weighting and inspections of grain in an "emergency, a major disaster"; currently, the Secretary has the option to do so, but does not have to. A is defined to specifically include "a sever weather incident causing a region-wide interruption of government services". the location of export inspections to specifically "export elevators" at export port locations. the criteria for who is qualified to perform official inspections by deleting a list of requirements. Delegations of authority to conduct grain inspections to a State every five years, and my be renewed. before the Secretary can delegate inspection responsibility to a State and in the Federal Register announcing if the State was approved and the rational for the decision. The State would have to give at least advanced notice in writing to the Dept. of Agriculture if they want to stop performing grain inspections, unless there has been a major disaster. a list of the States delegated to perform official inspections, which needs to be updated at least twice a year. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Michael Conaway of Texas's 11th district His #2 contributing industry over the course of his career has been ; he has taken at least $646,470. : Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2015 mandatory price reporting requirements for livestock until September 30, 2020. that reports are expected on days the Dept. of Agriculture is open for business, including days when the government is "on shutdown or emergency furlough as a result of a lapse in appropriations". transactions between pork packers and producers to take place using a new pricing formula. the definition of an importer of lamb to include anyone who imports an average of 1,000 metric tons per year; importers have to comply with regulations if they import and average of 2,500 metric tons of lamb per year. the definition of a lamb packer to someone who owns 50% or more of a facility and slaughters an average of 35,000 heads of lambs per year; if they slaughter 75,000 lambs per year. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Michael Conaway of Texas's 11th district : National Forest Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2015 and $3 million per year until 2018 for the National Forest Foundation Act, which established a partnership with a non-profit to study and restore national forests. This is the previous funding. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania's 5th district : Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act : Internet tax moratorium extended again by Grant Gross, IDG News Service, December 15, 2014. Makes the moratorium on Internet access taxes . Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia's 6th district : Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act art imported into the United States to be temporarily displayed from being seized by the United States, even if that art is discovered to have been stolen. This immunity to art stolen by the Nazis. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio's 1st district and : Native American Children’s Safety Act criminal background checks of any person who lives in a house applying to provide foster care to an Indian child and placement if anyone in the home is found to have committed certain crimes. This to emergency foster care placement Both bills passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by voice votes S. 184 was sponsored by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota and H.R. 1168 was sponsored by Kevin Cramer of North Dakota S. 184: H.R. 1168: : Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children. All 11 members by the President and Congressional leaders and their appointments will be for the entire duration of the commission. The Commission's job will be to on the effectiveness of programs aimed at the health and education of native children and to make recommendations for fixing the inadequacies. The Commission will after they submit their report. , but does not appropriate, $2 million. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota : Authorizing early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska Nebraska landowners to repay construction debts at any time. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska's 3rd district : Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act the State Department to designate an existing employee to coordinate efforts to protect art around the world from being stolen and/or destroyed. a committee, which will meet once a year and be made up of representatives from various Federal agencies, who will "coordinate and inform Federal efforts to protect international cultural property". importation of "archaeological or ethnological material of Syria" starting 120 days after the bills enactment. The import restrictions in five years, but can be extended. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Eliot Engel of New York's 16th district : Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act a public report every two years on competition, availability of services, and regulatory barriers to entry into the communications services business. an on privatization of the communications services industry, which includes public comments. an on foreign and domestic competition in the communications satellite market. an on the "status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming". the requirement that a report on cable industry price be completed annually. the requirement that a report on regulatory barriers be reviewed every three years. an "of whether any of such competitors have a dominant share of the market" Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by of Nevada : Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act Federal agencies to use remanufactured vehicle parts to maintain Federal vehicles. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan : VBID for Better Care Act a three year demonstration project to test for Medicare patients at two Medicare Advantage sites. Value based insurance allows insurance companies flexibility with co-payments, allowing them to lower co-payments for services deemed to be "high value" preventative services and increasing rates for services with uncertain value. It's designed to "create financial disincentives for poor health choices". The demonstration projects increases in co-payments to discourage the use of services. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee's 6th district : Increasing Regulatory Fairness Act the amount of time between proposed Medicare rate changes are announced and when they can go into effect from 60 days to 90 days. more information about why the changes are being implemented. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas's 8th district : Medicare Advantage Coverage Transparency Act an annual report to Congress detailing the location and number of people enrolled in Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania's 3rd district : Securing Seniors' Health Care Act the government from terminating a contract for a Medicare Advantage organization because it fails to meet minimum quality standards until the end of 2018. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida's 16th district : DHS Paid Administrative Leave Accountability Act of 2015 : Administrative Leave Restrictions at DHS Backed, FedWeek, July 8, 2015. to be completed by the Department of Homeland Security four times per year on the number of people on paid administrative leave for more than six months and the cost associated. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia's 11th district : Homeland Security Drone Assessment and Analysis Act on how commercially available small and medium sized drones could be used to commit terrorist attacks and what the Department of Homeland Security could do to stop this type of attack. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey's 12th district : Federally Funded Research and Development Sunshine Act of 2015 on the Federally funded research projects being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas's 4th district : Homeland Security University-based Centers Review Act on the effectiveness of using universities to conduct Department of Homeland Security research. Passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi's 2nd district June Hearings Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: , June 4, 2015. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: , June 16, 2015. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: , June 16, 2015. House Committee on Financial Services: , June 17, 2015. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: , June 17, 2015. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: , June 18, 2015. House Committee on Foreign Affairs: , June 18, 2015. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: , June 23, 2015. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control: , June 24, 2015. House Committee on , June 24, 2015. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: , June 24, 2015 House Committee on Ways and Means: , June 24, 2015 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: , June 25, 2015 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: , June 25, 2015. Jen's Podcast Appearances of American Workers Radio Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL?

1 september 2015 | 130 min

Do you want to know where your food comes from? Well, Congress is in the process of repealing our Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law because the World Trade Organization says our meat labels are internationally illegal. In this special episode, we take a look at the World Trade Organization: What is it? Where did it come from? How is it possible that it is determining our laws? Executive Producer: Stephen McMahan Executive Producer: Leslie Behan Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Please Support Upcoming Meet-Ups Orinda, September 2, 2015 6:30pm - 8:00pm: Orinda Library Auditorium 8:15pm - ?: The Bills : Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels. from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels. for labeling the country of origin of beef. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. Michael Conaway of Texas's 11th district : Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels. from the list of items that must have mandatory country of origin labels. for packers who want to include country of origin labels for beef, pork, or chicken. Has not passed the House of Representatives or the Senate Sponsored by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota Information Presented in This Episode Country of Origin Labels on the country of origin labels related to the case the United States lost regarding our country of origin labels. Panel Members for the country of origin label WTO case: Chairman: of Switzerland Was a trade negotiator for Switzerland during the Uruguay round and has been a WTO panelist since 1996 of Pakistan He’s a Senior Executive at for , the self-proclaimed “world’s largest consulting firm”, Joao Magalhaes of Portugal World Trade Organization has 161 member countries The House of Representatives voted to create the World Trade Organization on November 29, 1994. The U.S. Senate voted to create the World Trade Organization on December 1, 1994. The World Trade Organization's creation became law when on December 8, 1994. Additional Information on the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) : Frequently asked questions regarding Greece wants Greece to sell of their banks, rails, ports, utilities and airports in return for loans. Article: , EurActiv.com, August 19, 2015. Article: by Drew Desilver, Pew Research Center, October 9, 2014. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Singapore Management University, November 2012 () Article: by Josh Eidelson of Bloomberg, July 30, 2015. Sound Clip Sources Panel Discussion: , C-SPAN, April 15, 1994 Ralph Nader, founder of James Sheehan, analyst for the Hearing: , Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, October 18, 1994 Laurence Tribe, Professor at Harvard Law School Ralph Nader, founder of Panel Discussion: , , April 20, 1994. Arthur Dunkel Former Director General of the United Nations Wrote the in 1991, a 500 page general outline of what became the WTO 3 years later “Retired” from GATT in 1993, became a “trade consultant”, and served on the board of Nestle Was a registered Alejandro Orfila of the Organization of American States 1953: Director of Information at the Organization of American States right after it was formed 1962: Created a lobbying firm, specializing in the interests of U.S. firms investing in or trading with Latin America 1964: Political advisor to the Director of the Adela Investment Company, the largest multinational development corporation in Latin America 1975: Became Secretary General of the Organization of American States until 1984 James Callaghan Former Prime Minister of the UK Andreas von Agt Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands Press Conference: , U.S. Capitol, January 7, 2004 Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota Tom Buis, Vice President of the National Farmers Union Hearing: , House Rules Committee, June 9, 2015. Rep. Michael Conway of Texas Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD101: Trade Away May

31 juli 2015 | 94 min

Lots of new laws! Hear all about the final version of fast track and other trade related dingleberries, new measures to combat human trafficking, and new benefits for veterans. In this episode, you'll also learn about the bills that passed at least one branch of Congress in May, which include a poisonous scientific research funding bill, an anti-abortion bill, lots of bills to funnel taxpayer money into private pockets, bills that benefit veterans' families, and more. After the break, get the details for the Chicago and Miami meet-ups, an update on the Congressional Dish Arms Race, and hear a indisputable argument for why train travel is superior to plane travel. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Meet Up Times & Locations Chicago: Wednesday, August 5th 6:30pm: 225 Michigan Ave Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 698-7111 Co-Hosted by Kevin and Loren, hosts of Miami: Tuesday, August 18th 7pm: 6pm: Meet and Greet 7pm: Meeting begins 5505 NE 2nd Ave. Miami, FL 33137 (786) 693-9309 8:30pm: 188 NE 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33132 (305) 358-5222 Laws : Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act Became the vehicle for to become law Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers with 20 years experience to avoid a 10% tax penalty if they withdraw from their retirement plans after age 50, instead of 59.5 years old. The effects of this on the budget . Passed Sponsored by Rep. David Reichert of Washington Did Your Rep & Senators Vote for Fast Track? : Trade Preferences Extension Act Title I: Extension of African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Original African Growth and Opportunity Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000. Allows certain products from some African countries to be imported tax-free. Oil accounted for 68% of these imports in 2014; "despite remaining the top U.S. import under AGOA, U.S. oil imports from the region have fallen by 80% or nearly $40 billion since 2011." Clothes and vehicles from South Africa are the other main products imported tax-free under this law The law was going to expire on September 30, 2015. The assistance is intended to "encourage governments to Liberalize trade policy Harmonize laws and regulations with WTO membership commitments Engage in financial and fiscal restructuring Promote greater agribusiness linkages. Reauthorization Highlights Extends the AGOA until the President's ability to terminate an African country's eligibility for the program without notifying Congress and the country 60 days before. an annual public comment period regarding whether the African countries are meeting their eligibility requirements. the number of people employed full time to make sure African food exports meet U.S. food safety standards from 20 to 30. estimates that extending this program will cost us $2.8 billion in lost tax revenue by 2025 Title II: Extension of Generalized System of Preferences A bigger program for allowing products to be imported tax-free into the United States, which was first created in 1974. President Obama terminated Russia's status as a Generalized System of Preferences country in October 2014, after the invasion of Crimea. Extension Highlights the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program until December, 2017. to July 31, 2013, when the program expired. The estimates this extension will cost us over $2.5 billion in lost tax revenue. that are eligible for tax-free import eligible for tax-free import Title III: Extension of preferential duty treatment program for Haiti tax-free import status for products from Haiti until December 19, 2025. estimates this will cost us $520 million in lost tax revenue Title IV: Extension of trade adjustment assistance trade adjustment assistance until June 30, 2021 Specifically . Brings back a for workers who lose their jobs due to trade agreements or due to failed pension plans until , which are for health insurance on the ObamaCare exchange websites. The estimates that this will cost us $2.8 billion, with the most money needed from 2017 to 2021. : Tariff classification of recreational performance outerwear Contains a modified version of the Affordable Footwear Act, which on some athletic footwear. Contains part of the OUTDOORS Act, which was Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington and Senator Kelly Ayote of New Hampshire, which lowers or eliminates tariffs that for of REI, Amazon, Nordstrom, Brooks Sports, and Eddie Bauer. of Timberland The American Apparel and Footwear Association, the Outdoor Industry Association, Eastern Mountain Sports, Kamik Boots, NEMO Equipment, and New Balance, and the Washington Council on International Trade have all voiced support for this language, with the it's because it "would save consumers money while improving profits for our retailers and apparel companies that do their manufacturing overseas". The Outdoor Industry Association lobbying Congress on the US OUTDOOR ACT and the Affordable Footwear Act in 2014. Title VI: Offsets Extends customs charges for some imports from September 30, 2024 to July 7, 2025 and then for two and a half months in the Summer 2025, after the expiration. According to the , this will cause the revenue from those fees to spike from a little under a billion in 2024, to $4.6 billion in 2025. This is the biggest single source of money that will pay for this law. taxes on corporations that make more than $1 billion in 2019 by 8% for the months of July, August, or September of 2020. The corporation's next payment will . On the estimate, this makes it seem as though there is much more revenue for the 2015-2020 period than there actually is. If the numbers weren't cooked like this, the report would show an additional $5.7 billion budget deficit from 2015-2020. Beginning in 2016, the law from students from their school. estimates this will save almost half a billion dollars. the fines for failing to file tax returns on time or including incorrect information on a return, for example from $100 to $250 and raises the caps on these kinds of fees, . this will bring in an additional $136 million by 2025. people who choose to exclude foreign earned income from their tax returns from claiming the child tax credit, effective this year. this will save $293 million by 2025. Somehow the way Medicare pays for dialysis services in a way that . Passed the Senate and the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. George Holding of North Carolina : Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act Through , a person convicted of a human trafficking related offense will have to pay an extra $5,000 fine. The money will go to a "Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, controlled by the Attorney General. The money will be used for , to States, tribes, local government and non-profit NGO's, and . grant money specifically for victims of child pornography. the property that can been seized by the government from people convicted of human trafficking crimes. the "range of conduct punished as sex trafficking." adds "patronized, or solicited" to the list of of things punishable by a fine and at least 10 years in prison. : "Whoever knowingly" in the United States "recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, patronizes, or solicits" anything of value that arises out of forcing someone under 18 to "engage in a commercial sex act", which means "any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person." crime victims the right to be informed of any plea bargains or deferred prosecution agreements. that officers in anti-human trafficking programs operated by the Justice Department will have training on methods for investigating and prosecuting human traffickers and for getting proper physical and mental health care for the victims. that Federal prosecutors request restitution for the victims whether or not the victims request it. Creates an to analyze human trafficking laws every year until September 30, 2020. The members will except for travel reimbursement and per diem allowances. missing children reports to include a recent photo audits of human trafficking grants the Attorney General from giving a grant to a nonprofit that has offshore tax havens. Includes the which makes advertising the services of prostitutes who are under 18 or are forced into prostitution punishable by ten years in prison. a website for accessing victims' services the statute of limitations on civil actions by child trafficking survivors to 10 years after they turn 18. a "cyber crimes center" within the Customs and Immigration section of the Department of Homeland Security to "provide investigative assistance, training, and equipment to support United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement's domestic and international investigations of cyber-related crimes." The cyber crimes center will have a in it. The cyber crimes center will have a which will train and support Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees and help "Federal, State, local, tribal, military, and foreign law enforcement agency personnel engaged in the investigation of crimes" The cyber crimes center will have a , which will "enhance" Immigration and Customs ability to "combat criminal enterprises operating on or through the Internet, with specific focus in the areas of cyber economic crime, digital theft of intellectual property, illicit e-e-commerce (including hidden marketplaces), Internet- facilitated proliferation of arms and strategic technology, and cyber enable smuggling and money laundering" and will also help "Federal, State, local, tribal, military, and foreign law enforcement agency personnel engaged in the investigation of crimes" The cyber crimes center will be allowed to coordinate with the Defense Department to . Temporarily by 10% the amount of money a State can get from Federal grants if the State has a law that allows the mother of a child to eliminate the parental rights of her rapist and authorizes $5 million for the increases (only currently have such laws). people convicted in the military justice system to the National Sex Offender Registry. a hotline for sex trafficking victims to speak with service providers starting in 2017. sex trafficking victims automatically eligible for the jobs corps. human trafficking survivors to move to vacate any arrest or conviction records for crimes that they committed as a direct result of human trafficking. Passed the Senate and the House Sponsored by Senator John Cornyn of Texas : Girls Count Act the Secretary of State and Administrator of USAID to coordinate with the World Bank, UN nations agencies and "relevant organizations" to "enact, implement, and enforce laws" in other countries to register births of baby girls. Sunsets in June 2020. Passed the House and the Senate by voice vote Sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida : Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act Clarifies the effective date of a , which will effectively pay them less, as . Passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by voice votes Sponsored by Rep Will Hurd of Texas : Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act and additional $900 million for a Department of Veteran's Affairs Medical Center in Denver, CO. Passed the House and the Senate by voice votes Sponsored by Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado : Don't Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act money paid to the families of law enforcement officers who die in the line of duty from counting as taxable income. Passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota : Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act the President to give Congress any agreements with Iran within 5 days of reaching the agreement, along with a report by the Secretary of State on the effectiveness of the agreement. the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold hearings on the agreement within 30 days - if it would interfere with their August vacation. the President from altering sanctions on Iran during the Congressional review period. the President from altering sanctions on Iran if a joint resolution of disapproval passes both the House and the Senate for 12 days after passage. If the President vetoes the joint resolution of disapproval, the law him from altering Iran's sanctions within 10 days of the veto. the agreement to go into effect if Congress does nothing an expedited process for Congress to bring back the sanctions if Iran violates the agreement. Passed the Senate and the House of Representatives . Sponsored by Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania : Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015 Clean extension of Federal transportation programs until July 31, 2015. Passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Bill Schuster of Pennsylvania : Veteran's I.D. Card Act veterans who have honorably completed their service but who didn't "retire" or receive a medically-related discharge to request and pay for an ID card proving their veteran status. The fee for the card will be reassessed every . The cards would be available the bill would be signed into law. Final version passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. Vern Buchanan Bills : America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 Funds the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institute f Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy - Science, the Department of Energy - Applied Research and Development, and the Department of Energy - Technology Transfer. Contains that in the U.S. - to the new inventions - as long as to their systems. Continues to It would of current nuclear power plants Creates a which, in part, develops "small modular reactors". , small modular reactors are factory-made mini-nuclear power plants that can be shipped to places that don't have the infrastructure or money for large nuclear power plants. The idea is to create these for to sell around the world. So far, none of these have been designed, licensed, or constructed and DOE wants them deployed within the next decade. research into hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle technology and on-site renewable energy generation for buildings. research into fish friendly turbines for hydropower Allows "energy efficiency" money to be (). Makes the Secretary perform for renewable energy projects. a and other renewable power on State or local government buildings. the objective of from energy research, research money from being used for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration, the amount of fossil fuel research money that can be used in universities, and government research into fossil fuels from being used for regulatory assessments by the government. more taxpayer money in coal energy research. Passed the House of Representatives President Obama would the bill. The veto threat is because the bill funds much less than requested for many areas of research; for example, it provides less than half of what was requested for clean energy research and grid modernizations. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas : National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 Passed the House and the Senate (with changes) Sponsored by Rep. Mac Thorneberry of Texas : Gold Star Fathers Act hiring advantages for Federal jobs to fathers of people killed in military service (). Passed the Senate by voice vote Sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon : Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to withdraw a that would expand protection of waterways in the United States. a new proposed rule to be crafted using studies - including an economic impact study - hand picked by the bill authors. the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to consult with "public and private stakeholders" that would be effected by the rule any additional money for the extra work. the Federal government's classification of waterways from voiding State permits for two years. Passed the House of Representatives President Obama would the bill. Sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, who has taken from the Oil and Gas industry, with of that for the most recent election. : Fallen Heroes Flag Act of 2015 An immediate family member of a deceased fire fighter, law enforcement officer, member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who died in the line of duty can request and be free of charge by their Congressional Representative. Caps the amount to be spent on this at . Passed the House of Representatives by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York : Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Makes it for someone to perform an abortion unless: The fetus is The abortion is performed in a way that : If the mother's life is in danger due to a physical illness or injury Incest that has been reported to the government The pregnancy is the result of a rape The mother must have gotten rape counseling or medical treatment for the rape, which in the mother's medical file The rape counseling or report be provided by a non-hospital facility that performs abortions. The penalty for performing an abortion illegally can be The who performed her abortion illegally The mother be prosecuted Passed the House of Representatives President Obama would the bill Sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona : Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015 the Secretary of State to report to Congress "the activities of all satellite, broadcast, Internet, or other providers that knowingly provide material support to and any affiliates" and the status of sanctions against them as on September 23, 2001. financial institutions that process transactions for Hezbollah from opening or maintaining accounts in the United States. for facilitating Hezbollah transactions the greater of $250,000 or twice the transaction amount in addition to a criminal penalty of up to $1 million and up to 20 years in prison. This in 180 day intervals if the Treasury Secretary says it's in the "national security interests of the United States" These rules to intelligence activities Passed by Sponsored by Rep. Ed Royce of California : Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015 Reauthorized a program for homeless veterans . that veterans being released from prison are eligible for benefits. Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio : Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act the Department of Veterans Affairs to keep a copy of all official reprimands or admonishments in the employee's permanent record as long as they work at the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Ryan Costello : Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act the business that was owned by a disabled veteran to keep it's veteran perks if the spouse takes over the business for three years, if the veterans did not die as a result of a service related disability (if the veteran did die of service related injuries, the spouse can keep the benefits for 10 years or until she remarries). Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. Jerry McNerney : BRAVE Act the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to give preferential treatment to companies that hire veterans in their choice in awarding procurement contracts. A company that lies about the veteran status of its employees will be from contracting with the Department of Veteran's Affairs for five years. Passed the House of Representatives Sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Rice : Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act of 2015 monthly pension payments from counting as income for veterans who become permanently or totally disabled from non-service related injuries. the total amount of bonus money allowed to be issued to employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada : American Super Computing Leadership Act the definition of to include organizations that exist to benefit the Department of Energy to partner with universities, National Laboratories, and industry. the Department of Energy's High End Software Development Center and replaces it with a partnerships with universities, National Laboratories, and industry to do research. Part of this program outreach to domestic industries, including manufacturing so they can use the technology developed. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Randy Hultgren of Illinois : Science Prize Competitions Act private for-profit entities to be given grants and contract so administer government prize competitions. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia : Research and Development Efficiency Act a working group to make recommendations on how to streamline Federal regulations and to "minimize the regulatory burden" on universities performing federally funded research. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia : International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2015 a working group to coordinate international science and technology cooperation, designed in part to "support United States foreign policy goals". Will be by officials from the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of State. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois : Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015 a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association to improving weather knowledge, understand how the public reacts to warnings, and develop radar and other weather forecasting technologies. ) of the money for the program will go to universities, private entities, and NGO's to further their research. a tornado warning improvement program with the goal of predicting tornadoes more than an hour in advance. No budget listed. a Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program with the goal of extending hurricane forecasts. No budget listed. the government to pay commercial providers up to for weather data which makes NOAA contract with a private sector entity for weather data by October 1, 2016. (but doesn't appropriate) about $100 million per year through 2017. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma : Department of Energy Laboratory Modernization and Technology Transfer Act of 2015 an assessment and report on the Department of Energy's ability to host and oversee "privately funded fusion and non-light water reactor prototypes and related demonstration facilities at Department-owned sites" the Energy Department to carry out a pilot program research at National Laboratories. Projects with the private sector. the pilot program until October 31, 2017. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Randy Hultgren of Illinois : American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015 a corporate tax credit for research and development the expired at the end of 2014 The effects of this on the budget estimates this would increase the Federal deficits by $182 billion in the next ten years. President Obama the bill. Passed the House of Representatives President Obama would the bill. Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas Hearings Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Hearing: , June 9, 2014. House Committee on Science, Space and Techonology Markup Hearing: , April 22, 2015 Additional Information Federation of American Scientists: Federaation of American Scientists/Washington and Lee University Study: U.S. Department of Transportation Factsheet: Associated Press Article: by Joan Lowy, July 29, 2015 Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by by

CD099: April Takes a Turn

27 juni 2015 | 95 min

Medicare, cybersecurity, favors for banks, mortgages, IRS bullying, a tax cut for the rich, and a couple of good ideas are highlighted from the law and bills that passed Congress in April. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Laws : Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR): Enacted in 1997, the SGR paid doctors for Medicare patients based on the growth in gross domestic product (GDP). If Medicare costs increased more than GDP, doctors payments were cut across the board. , this formula for payment has meant that the Medicare payment rate to doctors is essentially the same as it was in 2001 and cuts have been postponed so many times that doctors' payments if this bill was not signed into law by April 1. This new law: the Sustainable Growth Rate formula for Medicare payments to doctors. while the payment rate transitions away from a pay-per-service model. The new system will be based on scores assessed by a "Merit-based Incentive Payment System" which which will go into effect on . A list of and doctors can choose which one's will be used in their performance assessments. Doctors will be rated and paid , which will starting in the second year of the program. The GAO will report on the effectiveness of the system . An advisory committee will be created , which will be to group practices and medical homes. Sets a goal for Medicare records to be electronic nation-wide . a bunch of existing Medicare programs, including the Children's Health Insurance Program (which covers low income kids whose parents make too much for Medicaid) . from five to ten years. a prior authorization requirement for "repetitive scheduled non-emergent ambulance transport" the printing of social security numbers on Medicare cards Pays for the new system by... to policies with to people who enter Medicare after January 1, 2020. For all future beneficiaries, they will have to pay (the cost of the Medicare Part B deductible). for relatively high income individuals. who have a gross income between $133,501 and $160,000 ($267,000 and $320,000 for a couple) will pay a 65% premium instead of 50%, and people above that will pay an 80% premium rate. This would beginning in 2020. Has a huge increase in the levy that the Treasury Department can impose on tax delinquent service providers, increasing it , effective on October 16, 2015. Will have auditors to help reduce the number of them. Creates , saving mail fees. The effect this bill will have on the budget . The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this bill will . Passed and Sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas Bills : National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 For reference, here's the of the Homeland Security Act, which is amended by this bill. This bill: to the that will be part of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which coordinates information sharing between the Federal government and other entities. Adds new groups to the list of who will be included in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center who . that the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center will share between the Federal government, local governments, and private sector. Authorizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to . Requires the government and businesses to use existing technology between the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and Federal agencies. Participation by non-Federal entities . Agreements that exist before this bill is signed into law with this law. All participating entities need to take . There's no listed punishments if they don't. for governing the use of information shared with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center . He/she will also be responsible for for government employees who disregard his/her privacy policies. entities that share information , if they share information according to this law. If the Federal government breaks this law, it will have to pay the person . There is a two year statute of limitations. This law that limit information sharing. The law would after enactment. Passed Sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas : Protecting Cyber Networks Act Contains the text of H.R. 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act Within of enactment, the for sharing classified "cyber threat indicators" with "non-Federal entities" Allows cybersecurity monitoring of government systems Allows "non-Federal entities" to other than the Defense Department. The entity sharing information must to remove personally identifiable information on people "not directly related" to the cybersecurity threat. governing what happens to information received by the Federal Government, of the bill becoming law. relating to privacy and civil liberties, within of the bill becoming law. A new branch, with , will be created within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, which will Information shared with the government is . Information given to the government to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat of "death or serious bodily harm or an offense arising out of such a threat" and to investigate, prosecute, prevent or mitigate a threat to a minor. to prevent, investigation, disrupt, or prosecute , , including murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, extortion, firearms use, firearms possession, or attempt to commit any of these crimes, including photographing or sketching defense installations, and . Passed Sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes of California : Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2015 to mobile home retailers who take mortgage loan applications, negotiate loans, or advise consumers on loan terms (including rates, fees, and other costs) This licensing, registry, a law prohibiting payment based on the terms of the loan, regulations prohibiting steering customers towards loans they can't repay or with excessive fees, regulations prohibiting mischaracterizing a customer's credit history, regulations prohibiting the mischaracterization of the appraised value of the home, or steering a customer towards a loan that's more expensive than others that they qualify for. banks can charge people buying a home for under $75,000 without the loan being labeled as "high-cost", which subjects the loans to . The regulations this would exempt the loans from: Ban , which is an oversized payment due at the end of a mortgage Prohibit banks from charging prepayment penalties and fees Restrict late fees to four percent of the payment that is past due Bans fees for loan modification Require banks make sure the loan can be repaid before offering it Prohibit banks from recommending that a customer default on a loan Require that banks receive a confirmation that the customer has received homeownership counseling before they accept a high-cost mortgage. Would allow banks to charge $3,000 or 5% in fees for loans under $75,000, . says banks can charge 5% for loans over $20,000, so the $3,000 fee option would hit the smaller loans the hardest. Passed the House . Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote. The bill by President Obama. Sponsored by Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee , his #4 donor and . Jeb Hensarling, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee , giving him $8,750. : Mortgage Choice Act of 2015 By changing the definition of what charges count as "points and fees", this bill... that charges for title insurance be counted as points and fees if they're paid to an affiliate of the bank/creditor that issued the loan. Currently, , which include fees charged by affiliated settlement providers. Every thing that gets exempted from counting as "points and fees" therefore becomes additional charges the lender is allowed to tack on to a mortgage. Exempts money held in for , which exempt insurance charges from the fee caps. The change in definition allows more fees to be charged to mortgages, while keeping those mortgages from being classified as "high-cost" and being subject to greater restrictions. This is ; it passed by voice vote on June 9, 2014. Passed the House . Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote. Sponsored by Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan are - in this order - Insurance ($273,265), Real Estate ($218,175), and Commercial Banks ($193,000). : Capital Access for Small Community Financial Institutions Act of 2015 Federal Home Loan Banks are privately owned cooperatives, funded by the global credit market, which provide money to local banks. There are twelve of them around the country and they are owned by the member banks. Most local banks are members of least one Federal Home Loan Bank. if they are FDIC eligible or are certified by the State. If the State doesn't get to it in under 6 months, Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio over the course of his four year Congressional career have been Insurance ($898,858), Commercial Banks ($534,622), and Securities and Investment ($502,098). : Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act Orders the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to create an application process for people or companies This would allow residents to become eligible for certain mortgages and exempt lenders from regulations intended for urban areas, after 2 years. Passed the House . Nydia Valazquez of New York was the only no vote. Sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky during his 3 years in Congress. : Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Advisory Boards Act Creates advisory boards for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Places for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Passed the House , with 4 Democrat Ayes and 5 Republican Nays President Obama the bill Sponsored by Rep. Robert Pittenger of North Carolina His #4 and #5 contributing industries are Securities & Investment and Commercial Banks; he's taken a during his 3 years in Congress : Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act Became the vehicle for Trade Promotion Authority in the Senate for organizations that are denied tax-exempt status Would apply to decisions made on or after . Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania : Taxpayer Knowledge of IRS Investigations Act Gives the Treasury Secretary of telling organizations if they are investigating a claim of unauthorized information disclosure by a government, if the investigation substantiated their claim, and if any action, including prosecution, is planned. Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania : Prevent Targeting at the IRS Act Allows the IRS to fire employees who steer and audit for a political purpose or for personal gain. Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. James Renacci of Ohio : Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act Makes gifts made to tax exempt. Passed the House by voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois : Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act Tells the IRS Commissioner to "ensure" that IRS employees are "familiar with and act in accord" with including The right to be informed The right to quality service The right to pay no more than the correct amount of tax The right to challenge the position of the Internal Revenue Service and be heard The right to appeal a decision of the Internal Revenue Service in an independent forum The right to finality The right to privacy The right to confidentiality The right to retain representation The right to a fair and just tax system Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois : IRS Email Transparency Act Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas : Death Tax Repeal Act for anyone who dies after the bill is signed , which is a tax on gifts and transfers of wealth to unrelated people who are more than 37.5 years younger than the donor, or to related people who are one generation younger. Would the top gift tax rate from 40 to 35 percent. The effects of this on the budget . The CBO says this would over the next 10 years President Obama the bill. Passed by Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas : State and Local Sales Tax Deduction Fairness Act the law that allows taxpayers who itemize their claims to deduct their state's sales taxes instead of getting a deduction for their state's income taxes. The effect of this bill on the budget . CBO says this would increase the Federal deficit over the next ten years. President Obama the bill. Passed the House . Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican no vote Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas : Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2015 Stops Federal agencies from contracting with companies that are tax delinquent A waiver can be issued and the contract granted if a report is submitted to Congress saying that the contract Passed the House Sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah : Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act Makes the Attorney General that a drug company is accused of violating in their notices to the companies regarding the possible suspension of their drug's registration. Allows drug companies to submit a when their drug registration may be suspended Passed the House by a voice vote Sponsored by Rep. Tom Marino of Pennsylvania His top contributing industry for the last election was the pharmaceutical industry; they gave him $55,250. : Medicare Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement Act Increases the length of Medicare contracts for at-home care from 3 years to 5 years Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon : Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act Clarifies that search and rescue volunteers and are . for allowing search and rescue teams onto Federal land so that they won't have to get insurance. The government as to approve or deny a request for a search and rescue mission . Passed the House Sponsored by Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada Rep. Heck introduced the bill in response to the ; the search for his body in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area was delayed because the search team needed a special use permit and a $1 million insurance policy. It took 10 months to get the insurance; his body was found 3 hours after their search began. The National Association for Search and Rescue and the National Park Service, however, . : Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act who provide information relating to motor vehicle defects or other dangerous safety problems. Allows the government to give from a car company that breaks the law to the whistleblower whose information lead to the conviction. The whistleblower is to be represented by a lawyer. Passed the Senate by a voice vote Sponsored by Senator John Thune of South Dakota Senator Thune has taken from the automotive industry : Steve Gleason Act of 2015 Starting in 2016, Medicare would cover . Allows people to (as opposed to renting them) if purchased between October 1, 2015 and October 1, 2018. Named after former NFL football player , who played for the New Orleans Saints before being diagnosed with ALS Passed the Senate of a voice vote Sponsored by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana Hearings : April 13 on HR 650 and HR 685, about housing bills. : April 21 on HR 1731 and HR 1560 on Cybersecurity : March 18 hearing on deregulation for banks titled "Preserving Consumer Choice and Financial Independence" Information Presented in This Episode Article: by Paul Demko, Modern Healthcare, April 14, 2015. Article: by Mike Baker and Daniel Wagner, The Seattle Times, April 2, 2015. Article: by Fowler Williams, National Mortgage Professional Magazine, June 11, 2015. Article: by Robin Sidel and Saabira Chaudhuri, Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2014 Article: by Anjeanette Damon, USA Today, March 8, 2014. Webpage: , Department of Homeland Security. Webpage: Press Release: Additional Information Kickstarter: by Soloman Kahn. Jen's Podcast Appearances : Talk Nerdy with Cara Santa Maria : Podcast Junkies with Harry Duran Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD098: USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act

3 juni 2015 | 75 min

It's law! The USA Freedom Act, which reauthorizes and privatizes portions of the Patriot Act, is being called a victory for privacy... but it's not. In this episode, find out all the details of the bill that was signed into law just hours after this episode was recorded, including how it continues bulk data collection and lets the most powerful men in the United States get away with breaking the law. Executive Producer: Brandon K. Lewis Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! : USA Freedom Act of 2015 : FISA business records reforms The government will need to provide for the data being collected , unless that telecom is under investigation The term can't be a ", including the United States, a city, a county, a State, a zip code, or an area code" The term must be something that The government will have after the bill is signed into law Limits ongoing phone call record collection to unless extended Orders the telecoms the order from the government to turn over call records if he/she informs a judge and applies for the warrant within 7 days. , nothing collected under the Attorney General's emergency power will be admissible in court, "except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person." will be in charge of determining if the standards above are met. a clause that lets a a protest from a company fighting a FISA order to any company that hands over information under a FISA order or an emergency order from the Attorney General for "expenses incurred" producing the information or assisting the government with FISA or emergency orders will not include the contents of the call, the person's name, address or financial information, or the cell phone's GPS location. The bill expressly says that , as authorized in by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 : FISA pen register and trap and trace device reform for the use of tracing devices installed to track phone numbers dialed in monitor Internet communications. : FISA acquisitions targeting person outside the United States reforms can be waived if the government fixes whatever illegal thing they were doing, which Within 180 days after enactment, FISA court judges will pick at least five people - "friends of the court" - to . for the amicus curiae participation. if the amicus curiae's participation is appropriate The Director of National Intelligence "to the greatest extent practicable" any FISA court decision that includes "a significant construction or interpretation of any provision of law" The decision, order, or opinion can be released to the public The Director of National Intelligence to make FISA decisions, orders, and opinions public as long as they say it's "necessary to protect the national security of the United States or properly classified intelligence sources or methods". : National Security Letter reform Letters served by the FBI to telecoms that allow the FBI to secretly demand data. There is a gag order on anyone who receives these letters, guaranteeing that the public is not told and that there is no judicial review. if the order "specifically identifies a person, entity, telephone number, or account as the basis for a request". There , preventing companies from telling anyone that the FBI is requesting the information, as long as the order also has a notification of the telecoms and if the : "A danger to the national security of the United States" "Interference with a criminal, counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation" "Interference with diplomatic relations" (new) "Danger to the life or physical safety of any person" : FISA transparency and reporting requirements Orders the government to submit a bunch of new reports to Congress Allows companies served with National Security Letters to approximately how many NSLs they've received They can only report the number of FISA orders and NSLs subject to a gag order They can only report the number of FISA orders and NSLs not subject to a gag order . They can report twice a year on the total number of orders, directives, and NSLs served These reports are only allowed to cover NSLs Once a year, they can report on the total number of orders, directives, and NSLs they were required to comply with to the The FISA court, if their ruling , will have to submit their decision or denial of disclosure petition to Congress within 45 days : Enhanced national security provisions Emergency monitoring of a person outside the United States is Extends PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 provisions . : Safety of Maritime Navigation and Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation of people suspected of trying to harm a United States ship Gives a to a person who with intent to damage people or property or . Sound Clip Sources : House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.R. 2048 from April 28, 2015 : May 20, 2015 : May 31, 2015, Part 1 : May 31, 2015, Part 2 : President George W. Bush speaks at Kansas State University, January 23, 2006. : President Barack Obama on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, August 6, 2013. : Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lies to Congress, March 12, 2013. : HBO, October 5, 2014 Information Presented in This Episode USA Freedom Act Article: by Ellen Nakashima and Mike DeBonis, Washington Post, May 11, 2015. Article: by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, May 13, 2015. Article: by Associated Press, April 30, 2015. Article: by Thomas Fox-Brewster, Forbes, May 14, 2015. Article: by Spencer Ackerman and Sabrina Siddiqui, The Guardian, May 13, 2015. Patriot Act Expiring Provisions Legal Summary: by Mary DeRosa, American Bar Association. Legal Summary: by Mary DeRosa, American Bar Association. Legal Summary: by Mary DeRosa, American Bar Association. NSA Surveillance System Article: by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, December 16, 2005. Article: by James Bamford, Wired, March 15, 2012. Article: by Aliya Sternstein, Defense One, July 25, 2013. Article: by Barton Gellman, Julie Tate, and Ashkan Soltani, Washington Post, July 5, 2014. Editorial: by John Napier Tye, Washington Post, July 18, 2014. Podcast Appearance : Effective NON-Marketing Ways to Grow Your Podcast - Interview with Jen Briney Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by Rhythm, Rhyme, and Results by (found on by mevio)

CD097: Nothing Horrible in March

13 maj 2015 | 101 min

A resignation, renewed "national emergencies", help for a (very) few veterans, screwing over of VA employees and Native Americans, favors for drug companies, changes to Amtrak, a veto threat and more are highlighted from a relatively calm March in Congress. In the second half of this episode, Jen discusses her plan to keep producing Congressional Dish full time, extends an invitation to hang out, reads some of your letters, and answers your questions. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Resignation of Illinois's 18th district resigned on March 17th, 2015 after it was discovered that he overcharged taxpayers and his campaign for miles driven on his personal car. Article: by Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer and John Bresnahan of Politico, March 17, 2015. Article: by Donna Cassata of AP, March 17, 2015. Article: by Jake Sherman, John Bresnahan, and Anna Palmer of Poltico, February 9, 2015. Article: by Paul Singer of USA Today, February 3, 2015. Article: by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times, May 6, 2015. Executive Orders , March 6, 2014, Ukraine , March 6, 2003, Zimbabwe March Laws : Slain Officer Family Support Act Allows contributions made to funds set up for to be , instead of 2015. Sponsored by Hakeem Jefferies of New York : Energy Efficiency Improvement Act Requires the Administrator of General Services to that . The model provision will be published publicly to . The EPA will create a program to "recognize" energy efficiency by tenants in commercial buildings. Grid enabled water heaters will have or company that operates the grid. Grid enabled water heaters will have . It for anyone to activate a grid-enabled water heater that is not part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. Creates for researching the energy use of commercial and multifamily buildings. Sponsored by Rob Portman of Ohio March Bills : "Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act" , starting on October 1, 2015, the Veteran's administration can place veterans who can not live independently but want a family setting into may have their "medical foster home" care paid for by the government the amount that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs can award According to on Veteran's Day 2014, there are . Sponsored by Rep. Jeff MIller of Florida Passed : Authorizes the government to take back Department of Veterans Affairs employees' bonuses Allows the government to force an employee of the Department of Veteran's Affairs they previously received. The employees can be ordered to give back their bonus if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines that it's that the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs . The employee will be given a notice and be allowed an opportunity for . The decision to order a bonus repayment will be final and . The Senior Executives Association (SEA), which represents Federal executives, wrote Rep. Jeff Miller to this bill. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida Passed by voice vote : Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act Requires the Veteran's Administration to create Creates a position to do the reports for the Veterans Department to use for the extra work Sponsored by Corrine Brown of Florida Passed by : "Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act" Article: , Alexander Gaffney, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society, March 17, 2015. Fact Sheet: , Drug Enforcement Agency of drugs until after the Department of Justice issues a final rule for the drug. Forces the Department of Justice to schedule the drug of the final rule Allows drugs that are to be Makes it in clinical trials by forcing the government to rule on an application within 180 days. Creates a path for Sponsored by of Pennsylvania, who has taken over $928,000 from "health professionals" and $634,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. Passed by voice vote Access to Life-Saving Trauma Care for All Americans Act annual grants to trauma centers, but that the money be used for Indian trauma centers Sponsored Michael Burgess of Texas Passed : Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act for trauma centers, Grants can only to to regional burn centers . Sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas Passed with all no votes coming from Republicans : Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Improvement Act For two years, 2017 -2019, a company that wants to bid for a Medicare equipment contract has to buy a that costs between $50,000 and $100,000. The companies will forfeit the bid bond Contracts to companies that don't meet state licensure requirements. Sponsored by Rep. Pat Tiberi of Ohio Passed by voice vote : Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act volunteer firefighters and EMT's from counting towards the Affordable Care Act employer mandate. Sponsored by Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania Passed 415-0 Was the vehicle for : Tenant Income Verification Relief Act Landlords would only have to verify income for fixed-income families in subsidized housing once , instead of every year. Sponsored by of Colorado Passed by voice vote : Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act If the amount of Federal funds, excluding grants, is under 49%, housing projects on Indian land . Requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development . low income Indian housing grants to $650 million per year through 2019 (). that is more than three times their annual grant amount as of January 2016 A will allow tribes to partner with private investors for housing development projects. Grant money can be used to ensure a for the investors Grants for Native Hawaiian homes will go until 2019. Sponsored by of New Mexico. Passed , with most no votes coming from Republicans : "Secret Science Reform Act of 2015" Prohibits the EPA from proposing or finalizing a regulation unless the research used is publicly available online and can be reproduced Sponsored by , who has taken over $610,000 from the Oil and Gas industry Passed : Amtrak Amtrak will will be funded with , for the next four years. In order to receive grant money, Amtrak will need to , including establishing new routes, eliminating routes, and frequency of service. The that own our rail infrastructure will have to be taken into account Creates a pilot program instead of Amtrak on desired routes for 5 years Gives the private company an equal to 90% of what Amtrak receives Requires the private company's This program will only be available on a intercity passenger rail routes The private company will be required to run the route The private company will be to Amtrak's reservation system, stations, and facilities. Requires Amtrak to within five years and . Requires Amtrak for telecommunications systems, energy distribution, and "other activities" and Amtrak will share the revenue. Creates a pilot program to within a year of enactment Pets must be in a kennel and stored as carry-on baggage Pet owners will pay an extra fee Larger pets will be allowed in the temperature controlled cargo hold The program will be paid for 100% through pet owner fees Sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania Passed , with every Democrat voting yes Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by 54 Seconds (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD096: Fast Tracking Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority)

27 april 2015 | 62 min

Time-sensitive episode! Congress is rushing to pass a bill that would grant the President Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which hands Congress' power to negotiate international treaties to the Executive Branch. In this episode, we look at the details of the Trade Promotion Authority bill. Is giving the Executive Branch this power a good idea? Please Contact Your Representative in the House Please Contact Your Two Senators Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or Fast Track The following links are to the text of H.R. 1890, as introduced in the the House Ways and Means Committee. The Senate, as of April 26, has not sent the text of their version to the Government Publishing Office to be released to the public. [caption id="attachment_1743" align="aligncenter" width="968"] Despite having been introduced on April 16 and passed out of the Senate Finance Committee on April 22, the text of Trade Promotion Authority had still not been submitted for public publishing on April 26[/caption] that keep multinational corporations out of foreign countries Allow multinational corporations Get other countries that companies have to pay to sell their products in other countries (tariffs) that prevent businesses from operating in other countries Agriculture unless an approved international scientific organization says the concerns are legit. for their own industries for food that "affect" biotechnology (for example, genetically modified foods) and making labeling requirements Prohibits restrictions Foreign Investment into and out of the country for opening and operating a business in a foreign country Create laws that for law that reclaim their land from corporations for the Investor State Dispute System Ensure that Investor State Dispute System rulings , that hearings are open to the public, and that businesses, unions, and NGO's have a way to make their opinions heard in Investor State Dispute System cases, even if those businesses, unions and NGOs are not a part of the case. Intellectual Property Make sure that companies have the legal and technological means Regulatory Practices Have countries Government-Owned Industries Localization Labor and Environment Require countries to Ensure that Anti-Corruption anti-corruption and anti-bribery initiatives Section 3: Trade Promotion Authority for the President before That can (and likely will) be extended until July 1, 2021. The President has to in writing and submit reports to Congress and . Procedures for the President to Enter International Agreements The President must notify Congress of his intention to begin negotiations they start , the President must publish a summary of the negotiation objectives on a publicly available website. Before entering into an agreement, and inform them of the At least , the President must submit a report to Congress of the proposals that "may be" in the final agreement. At least entering the agreement, the President must provide the International Trade Commission - which is not a part of Congress - with details of the agreement as it exists at that time and request an assessment of the agreement. At least entering the agreement, the President must publish his intention to enter the agreement in the Federal Register. entering into the agreement, the President must publish the text of the agreement on a publicly available Internet website of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. entering the agreement, the President must give Congress the final text and a plan for implementing and enforcing it. Any agreement with a foreign government is introduced will have no force or effect. Congressional Involvement in Negotiations The U.S. Trade Representative who requests a meeting The U.S. Trade Representative The United States Trade Representative must with various committees at various stages of negotiations. The U.S. Trade Representative - not Congress - will and the USTR can . The U.S. Trade Representative . It's unclear if they will be able to participate in the actual negotiations. If the Senate Finance Committee meets to pass the implementing bill, , a "disapproval resolution" will be passed and sent to the Senate floor. of the House or Senate can introduce a "disapproval resolution" , the resolution goes to the Committee on Ways and Means AND the Committee on Rules If the Committee on Ways and Means does not pass the resolution in 6 legislative days, . In the Senate, the resolution goes to the Committee on Finance. Information for the Public The U.S. Trade Representative to information regarding agreements, which he can revise at any time. Creates a new position in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative - the Chief Transparency Officer - who will "consult" with Congress on transparency policy, "assist' the public, and "advise" the U.S. Trade Representative Sovereignty Hearings Discussed in This Episode , Senate Finance Committee, April 16, 2015. [caption id="attachment_1745" align="aligncenter" width="314"] People available for questions during the April 16 surprise hearing in the Senate Finance Committee about Trade Promotion Authority[/caption] , Senate Finance Committee, April 21, 2015. [caption id="attachment_1746" align="aligncenter" width="303"] People available for questions during the April 22 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Trade Promotion Authority [/caption] (the Trade Promotion Authority bill), Senate Finance Committee, April 22, 2015. (the Trade Promotion Authority bill), House Ways and Means Committee, April 22, 2015. Additional Information , Center for Responsive Politics , Center for Responsive Politics , ucbiotech.org - University of California, February 2012. on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio)

CD094: A Damage-Free February

28 mars 2015 | 52 min

A summary of all the bills that passed at least one branch of Congress in February, including six bills destined for a veto and one new law. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Information Discussed in this Episode Read Jennifer Briney's . Check out , written by Paul and David DiGiovanni. [caption id="attachment_1731" align="aligncenter" width="266"] This is the tool I used to help my AMA raise to #1 on Reddit's front page[/caption] Follow and , the on Twitter Listen to the details of Jen's front-page of Reddit experience on [caption id="attachment_1732" align="aligncenter" width="549"] Listen to this episode to find out what it's like to have your first reddit AMA end up at #1 on the front page[/caption] February Laws Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act Requires of Veteran's Administration mental health programs Requires the Veteran's Administration to that needs to be updated at least every 90 days. Creates a to repay psychiatrists' loans () if they work for at least two years at the Veteran's Health Administration. to get this done. Written by Democrat Rep. Timothy Walz of Minnesota February Bills : Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act Forces all challenges in court . Orders the Department of Energy to to coordinate Federal assistance for making schools energy efficient Expresses a that Congress should tax bitumen as oil for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Requires the General Services Administration to that encourage tenants to invest in energy and water efficiency Requires the EPA to develop a program to recognize commercial tenants who achieve high standards of energy efficiency. for people to tamper with grid-enabled water heaters Passed in the Senate, with nine Democrats joining all Republicans. It passed in the House, with all but Justin Amash of Michigan voting yes on the Republican side and with 29 Democratic yes votes. Sponsored by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, whose top contributing industry is Oil and Gas, which has given him and the Senate failed to over-ride that veto by the two-thirds majority they would need to do so. : To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , effective 6 months after it would become law. The effects this would have on the budget . Would require three House Committees . There is no deadline. Written by new Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama, whose ) in his first election was Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who gave him over $30,000 that we know of. In total, he took over $180,000 from the Insurance and Health industries. and : Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015 Forces the government to consult with the private sector when creating regulations. Sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina in the House and Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska. : Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 Would make creating regulations harder and make the government analyze a regulations effect on businesses finances. Blog: by Amit Narang. The Hill. February 2015. Passed in the House. Written by Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio : Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015 Makes permanent a tax deduction for businesses that donated food inventory to charity Increases the amount corporations can deduct for food inventory they donate to charity Passed , with 39 Democrats joining all but one Republican (Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina). because it would over the next 10 years. Written by Rep. Tom Reed of New York : America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015 a tax credit for depreciable business property, and increases the credit every year with inflation. Expands the eligible business property to include computer software, actual property, air conditioning and heating units. , from 10 years to 5 years. The effects of this on the budget . The bill would Passed , with all but one Republican (Walter Jones of North Carolina) voting yes, along with 33 Democrats. because it would over the next 10 years. Sponsored by Rep. Pat Tiberi of Ohio : Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act Allows and money to be . Written by Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida; he has taken . : Social Media Working Group Act of 2015 Authorizes a group within the Department of Homeland Security, made up of government officials and private sector employees, to report on how to use social media during emergencies. The group from the , which requires meetings and transcripts be available to the public. Passed in the House, with most no votes coming from Republicans, along with Democratic Rep. Jared Polis. Written by Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana : Drinking Water Protection Act Orders the EPA to make a plan to study algae in drinking water supplies Passed with Written by Rep. Robert Latta of Ohio : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 529 plans. Allows computers and Internet access to be paid for with tax-advantaged college savings plan funds Changes the way taxes are calculated Would . Passed Written by Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas : Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Gives the Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland Security the job of making sure that DHS departments can communicate with each other in emergencies. Written by Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey : STEM Education Act of 2015 Changes definition of STEM education to include computer science Creates one-year grants for math and science teachers to get master's degrees Passed Written by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas : TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2015 Changes the job classification standards of criminal investigators in the TSA to make them tougher, which would theoretically result in less people being paid the higher wages associated with that title Passed Sponsored by Rep. John Katko of New York : Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the effectiveness of the transportation security card program, which are biometric identification cards for maritime DHS workers. Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from requiring the use of security card readers until the assessment is finished and a card reader is identified that will work with existing security cards Appropriates no additional money Passed without a recorded vote Sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas : Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act Consolidates FCC reports into one assessment to be done every two years Passed Written by Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana : Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act of 2015 Expands the definition of "full amount of the victim's losses" to include medical services, rehabilitation, and loss of income for the victim's lifetime. Passed 98-0 Sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD093: Our Future in War

13 mars 2015 | 80 min

In this episode, learn about our global war strategy for the 114th Congress through highlights of two Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. Witnesses include former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, and George Shultz and retired military leaders General James Mattis, General Jack Keane, and Admiral William Fallon. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 27, 2015 General James N. Mattis, USMC (Ret.) Former Commander, United States Central Command 2010-2013 On the , a blood diagnostics company General John "Jack" M. Keane, USA (Ret.) Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 1999 - 2003 On the () as of July 2012 Is a , a private equity firm with investments in IT, medical devices & pharmaceuticals, and surveillance, and defense. On the , which . On the On the , a commercial real estate service in Washington D.C. Admiral William J. Fallon, USN (Ret.) Former Commander, United States Central Command Executive Vice President of Strategy of , which help companies score defense procurement contracts as of April 201, which is The Executive Chairman of the Board is Eric Prince of Blackwater , a cybersecurity company. On the at , which is a cybersecurity company. On the at the Owns his own consulting and advisory business, William J. Fallon & Associates, Inc. Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 29, 2015 Henry Kissinger Government Positions Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to Presidents Ford and Nixon Coordinated the CIA coup that overthrew Allende and installed Pinochet in Chile () Private Positions , a blood diagnostics company Member of the 1994 CSIS American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (with Brzezinski) , Madeleine Albright Government Positions President Clinton's Secretary of State Private Positions member , and Chair of Albright Capital Management, an affiliated investment advisory firm focused on emerging markets. in , a telecommunications company in Africa. Albright Capital Management is , an international retail company with over 120 stores, that sells things in airport, seaports, and borders, including duty free stores and jewelry stores. Albright Capital Management is also , which supplies government utilities in developing nations with power equipment. Dr. George P. Shultz Government positions President Nixon's Labor and Treasury Secretary President Reagan's Secretary of State Advisor to President George W. Bush: The Wall Street Journal called him Private positions President and Director of the Bechtel Group from 1974-1982, until he became Reagan's Secretary of State 1976: Educated at the On the Board of Directors of , which has something to do with DARPA training and education. , a blood diagnostics company as of March 2014 Information Presented in This Episode Ukraine U.S. Planned Coup Listen to the leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. that the United States was behind the installation of the new Ukrainian government. IMF loan Ukraine was awarded , in February 2015. Economic Reforms adopted Increase military spending from 184,000 to 250,000 Stricter punishments for deserters (approximately 10,000 people have deserted the army.) 3-7 years in jail for failure to execute an order that caused grave consequences Privatize Energy , from 20 to 70 percent. by 2.2 times by 3.3 times Deregulation Ukraine is world's Three types of business activities related to agriculture Trade in pesticides and argo-chemicals Cattle breeding activities Fumigation Cut Social Welfare Programs Pension reforms will Weapons to the New Government Iraq Oil Pipeline . Budget Functions Function 150 Function 150 appears to be Function 150 Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Blood is Thicker than Oil by (found on by mevio)

CD090: January: Wall Street Gets Some Love

12 februari 2015 | 38 min

A summary of January, the first month of the 114th Congress. In this episode, a favor for Wall Street is signed into law, the Senate did almost nothing, and the House passed bills that benefit Wall Street, fossil fuel companies, and companies that don't want to give you health insurance. There were a few good bills mixed in there too. Please Support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! January Laws : Terrorism Risk Insurance Program ReAuthorization Act of 2015 The bill and changes the terms of the program that provides Federal insurance to businesses damaged in a terrorist attack. The program was after expiring on December 31, 2014. from 85% to 80% over the course of the next five years. There's a $100 billion cap on Federal losses. The program trigger, which is the point at which insurance companies get Federal money, from $100 million now to $200 million. ; the Secretary of State will no longer be involved. . The attachment prevents the SEC from telling swaps traders how much cash they need to put up front to make a swaps trade. The attachment is the text of the , which was written by . He tried to get it passed in the 112th and 113th Congresses, before he resigned on the first day of the 114th Congress . The Securities and Investment industry was his #2 contributor, . Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who fought to keep this provision in the bill, has taken . January Bills and : Hire More Heroes Act Veterans with government health care which triggers a company's obligation to give employees health insurance. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis in the House, who has taken . The bill is sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who has taken . National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015 Reauthorizes and updates the The program designed to improve weather modeling, coordinate post-storm investigations, improve understanding of wind's impact on buildings and vital infrastructure, and promote adoption of storm preparation measures. for the next three years Written by Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2015 for the Pacific and Arctic Oceans and for the Atlantic Ocean into a single warning system, which will . Appropriates through 2017 to get this done. Passed unanimously. Written by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act Requires of Veteran's Administration mental health programs Requires the Veteran's Administration to that needs to be updated at least every 90 days. Creates a to repay psychiatrists' loans () if they work for at least two years at the Veteran's Health Administration. to get this done. Written by Democrat Rep. Timothy Walz of Minnesota : LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act Forces the Department of Energy to decide on applications to construct, expand, or operate liquified natural gas export facilities . Requires the applicant the specific destination of the liquified natural gas exports. Written by Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio, whose are #1 Leadership PACs, who have given him over $387,000, #2 Mining, who has given him over $250,000, and #3 Oil and Gas, who has given him over $244,000. and Keystone XL Pipeline Act the Keystone XL pipeline. Forces any lawsuits against the pipeline Written by Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, whose , who have given him over $322,000. Save American Workers Act of 2015 Makes people work for . The effects of this on the budget Written by Rep. Todd Young of Indiana Passed Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015 Adds Makes it Written by Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, who has accepted from various industries Passed the House 250-175 Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act A package of 11 Wall Street deregulation bills from the 113th Congress (the GOP House leadership on the second day of the 114th Congress). , which is the bill that has already been signed into law as an attachment to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program reauthorization. Would (the Federal Reserve already delayed it until 2017), which prohibits commercial banks from trading collateralized loan obligations. Would allow companies to from their financial reports at their discretion. Companies with under $250 million in revenue (this would include roughly 60% of publicly traded stocks). , which will . The bill was sponsored by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who is retiring from Congress at the end of this term. His #1 contributing industry is leadership PACs but his #4 is the finance industry. : GOP Financial Services video about HR 37, starring Michael Fitzpatrick : Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act This bill was discussed during the 113th Congress in If the agency does not decide within 90 days of the completed environmental review, the permit will be on the 120th day Written by Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas () who has taken almost $300,000 from Koch Industries alone. In total, he has taken . : No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015 Would prohibit Federal funding for (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, except in cases involving rape, incest, or life endangermen). Written by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 Already dead. Human Trafficking Prioritization Act Sense of Congress that the State Department can combat trafficking just and . Written by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey : International Megan’s Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking Creates a new in the Department of Homeland Security which will about sex-offenders and notify other countries of the sex-offender's travel plans. Written by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey : Human Trafficking Prevention Act for Federal employees dealing with human trafficking. Written by Rep. Sean Maloney of New York : Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking Act of 2015 to the list of things that grant money for runaway and homeless kids can be used for Written by Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada : Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Act of 2015 Orders a few reports Written by Kristi Noem of South Dakota : Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act of 2015 Prioritizes how grants to local police forces are given treatment of victims of sex trafficking Makes sex trafficking even if they aren't low income Written by Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota : SAVE Act of 2015 Makes of prostitutes who are under 18 or are forced into prostitution punishable . Written by by Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri : Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 based on the State's laws' treatment of victims of sex trafficking Adds the to the definition of "child abuse' Eliminates the prosecutorial requirement that that the government prove that the defendant recklessly disregarded the victims age Written by Rep. Ted Poe of Texas : Human Trafficking Detection Act of 2015 Trains TSA, Customs, and Border Patrol agents on how to detect and disrupt human trafficking within one year Written by Rep. Bradley Walker of North Carolina and : Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care Act of 2015 Gives for recognizing and treating human trafficking victims Written by Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina in the House and Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana in the Senate. : Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act of 2015 based on the State's laws' treatment of victims of sex trafficking Written by Rep. Karen Bass of California : To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. to the list of things that should be reported on the Written by Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio Additional Information Article: by Stephanie Strom. New York Times. April 2013. Article: by Brian Stelter. CNN Money. January 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio) by Be Heard Have something to say? Leave a message on the Congressional Dish voicemail line and it might be featured on the show! Call (339) 707-0307 Help Congressional Dish Rate Congressional Dish with and leave a rave review. Download and share the FREE Congressional Dish app for and . Submit your favorite episodes to . Musicians: Share your music with Congressional Dish (and the world) - email the mp3 to Jen at Congressioanldish dot com. Share your favorite episodes with other podcasters, share with your Facebook friends, share with your Tweeps, share, share, share!

CD089: Secrets of the CRomnibus (2015 Budget)

31 januari 2015 | 67 min

In this episode, we look at the riders added to the must-sign 2015 budget, including favors for Wall Street, unions, agribusiness, the oil and gas industry, electric utilities, the vending machine industry, telecoms, the trucking industry, the insurance industry, and the politicians themselves. Please Support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Article: by David Dayen. The Fiscal Times. December 2014. Article: by Russ Choma, OpenSecrets Blog, December 2014. Agriculture & FDA : Defunds an that evaluates the effectiveness of food safety inspection processes. : Prohibits funding from being used to inspect livestock slaughterhouses from animals who will be eaten and . : States can exempt schools from the requirement to provide whole grains to students in school lunches. : No money can be used to implement a law that would require a sodium reduction in school lunches. Commerce, Justice, & Science : The Department of Justice can't pay for an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger or unless she was raped. The bill acknowledges that this might be unconstitutional and if so, this provision will be "null and void". : Money can't be used for propaganda that is not authorized by Congress. : No money can be used to seek the removal of another country's tobacco marketing restrictions, "except for restrictions which are not applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the same type". Article: , Krista Hughes, Reuters, October 21, 2014. : "None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used in any whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture by any official or contract employee of the United States Government." : Fully automatic weapons if they are to be used by the US Federal Government or the government of Canada. : Prohibits new trade agreements from including language that , language that , and language that . : No money can be used to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammaed or any other detainee from Guantanamo Bay prison to another location in the United States. : The government should purchase Energy Star light bulbs to the extent practicable. : Prohibits government employees from denying or ignoring a permit to import shotguns. : Prevents the Department of Justice from using it's money to prevent States from implementing their medical marijuana laws. TITLE VI- Travel Promotion Enhancement and Modernization Act Passed the House in July 2014 and was discussed on . Changes the board of directors of – a non-profit organization that advertises U.S. tourism – from being made up of to one , with five seats reserved for people with ties to multinational corporations. It eliminates the seat for the specialist in intercity passenger rail. for the government to spend $100 million per year on Brand USA through 2020. – a $10 fee charged to people who get a visa to travel into the United States – until 2020. Defense Coming Soon Energy & Water : Federal funding can't be used to enforce the mitigation regulations known as the "Modified Charleston Method." The Modified Charleston Method was implemented in May 2011 and is a formula for calculating how much wetlands need to be protected for each acre of private development. This method protects more wetlands than are protected when it is not used, generally requiring 3 acres of wetland conservation for every acre destroyed. InfoPacket: One of the is a Kinder Morgan natural gas pipeline. . Article: , and St. Tammany Officials Get Worried by Christine Harvey. The Times-Picayune. March 2012. Amendment added by Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana Press Release: , December 2014. The vast majority of Rep. Steve Scalise's campaign funds come from PACs - 71% - but his #1 listed contributing industry is Oil and Gas; he's taken : Prohibits changes to the regulatory definition of "fill material" or "discharge of fill material". In 2002, the Bush administration changed the definition of "fill material" which can be dumped into waterways with a permit, . This was . He has taken and $137,000 from mining. : Prohibits the government from requiring a permit into waterways. : Deletes that limits the farming and ranching "fill material" that can be dumped without a permit. : The Department of Energy is not allowed to construct centrifuges for enriched uranium in 2015 and needs to do a cost-benefit analysis of options for suppling enriched uranium for war purposes and an "estimate to build a ". : Prohibits enforcement of . According to the Department of Energy, these standards will save $17.7 billion in energy costs over the next 30 years, as well as avoid 106 million metric tons of co2 emissions. , whose #5 contributing industry is Electric Utilities - -, although he get 69% of his money from PACs. He has added it to must-sign legislation every year since 2010. Financial Services : The Treasury Department may not redesign the $1 bill. Article: by Sarah Mimms. National Journal. January 2015. Article: . Associated Press. December 2006. Article: by Tina Kelley. New York Times. May 2008. : Prevents the Federal Communications Commission from implementing that would to allow payment for broadband lines per household instead of per line, which would effectively reduce the subsidy for the companies. FAQ: . : The text of , which was the bill that will allow banks to gamble with credit default swaps on the stock market with customers deposits in FDIC insured banks. Article: by Mayra Rodriguez Valldares. New York Times. May 2014. Article: by Michael Moore. Bloomberg. May 2014. , who took over from Securities and Investment bankers for the last election alone. Over the course of his four year career, he's taken almost from bankers... that we know of. : Prohibits funding for requirements that would make companies submitting offers for Federal contracts to disclose their political contributions. : Prohibits Washington DC from using its money to from legalize or reduce the penalties for a schedule I substance, which includes marijuana, for recreational use. Land Management & Environment The Department of the Interior : For the United States Geological Survey to surveys and research topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the mineral and water resources of the United States... approx $1 billion, available until 9/30/2016. : $125 million minus fees collected, estimated real appropriation of $66 million for enforcing regulations for leases for oil and gas, other minerals, and energy on the Outer Continental Shelf over half of which needs to go towards expediting drilling permits on the Outer Continental Shelf. Collection and disbursement of royalties, fees, and other mineral revenue will get . Wildland fire management: . Hazardous fuels management and resilient landscapes activities can be privatized. This money can be used by the Secretary of State outside the United States. This money incurred for fires in previous years. This money to deal with earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, oil spills, and to control cricket outbreaks. : Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from protecting the Sage-Grouse under the Endangered Species Act. by Sandra Fish, AlJazeera America, December 2013. Environmental Protection Agency Over for fire suppression. averaged $1.46 billion a year since 2000, a time period that since records began in 1880. : Allows Alaska red and yellow cedar to be exported to foreign countries. Press Release: by the Center for Biological Diversity, June 2014. Article: by Maria La Ganga, Los Angeles Times, November 2014. Article: by Katie Mortiz, Juneau Empire, October 2014. Article: by Michael Wines, New York Times, September 2014. Article: by Krista Langlois, High Country News, January 2015. Article: by : No money can be used to regulate carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor or methane emitted from livestock production. : No money can be used to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. Amendments identical to Sections 419 and 420 by Rep. Ken Calvert of Southern California. He has taken . : No money can be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle. Labor, Health, & Education Health and Human Services : Prohibits funding of gun control promotions. : The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) can privatize research into drugs for 10 years. Op-Ed: of by former Rep. Mike Rogers, The Hill, October 2014. Department of Education : No money can be used for transporting children to other school districts to "carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system." : No money can be used to prevent voluntary prayer in public schools. Department of Labor : The National Labor Relations Board can't use their money to provide employees with electronic voting for electing representatives for their collective bargaining. All Departments : The Departments of Health & Humans Services, Labor, and Education can't use their money to pay for health benefits coverage that includes abortion coverage. : Abortions can be paid for with Federal funds if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest or if the mother's life is in danger. States will be allowed to cover abortion and abortion coverage can be offered separately. : No money can be used for research that harms a human embryo. : No money can be used for programs that distribute sterile needles to drug addicts. : No money can go towards ACORN, "or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, allied organizations, or successors." Article: , by David Weigel, Bloomberg, December 2014. Ebola money is available for use until September 30, 2019. for the Centers for Disease Control to "respond to Ebola domestically and internationally." $10 million for hospital worker and emergency first responder training. $597 million for global health security The money can be used to purchase and insure vehicles in foreign countries. : The CDC can use this money to "acquire, lease, construct, alter, renovate, equip, furnish, or manage facilities outside the United States." in "emergency" funding will go towards the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases" to "respond to Ebola domestically and internationally." for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to "respond to Ebola domestically and internationally" to develop and purchase vaccines, "necessary medical supplies, and administrative activities." Money can be used for the "renovation and alteration of privately owned facilities at the State and local level" Congress : No money can be used to deliver a printed copy of a bill to a Representative unless that Representative asked for it. : No more than 50 copies total of the US Code can be printed for the entire House of Representatives. : The Government Printing Office is renamed to the Government Publishing Office. Military Construction : Construction contracts with guaranteed profits will be allowed in Alaska and/or if the Defense Secretary says there's a reason for one in writing. : Military construction money can't be used to pay property taxes in foreign countries. : The military can't use this money for any new installations without notifying the House and Senate Appropriations Committees first. : Architect or engineer contracts over $500,000 in Japan, NATO countries, or countries bordering the Arabian Gulf must be awarded to US firms or be partnerships with US firms. : Money for military construction can be held & used up to four years after it is appropriated. : $125 million extra is appropriated until September 2018 for projects anywhere excepts in Europe. : No money can be used to prepare any United States facilities to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison. Veterans Veterans benefits will cost and medical expenses will cost , which is $153 billion total. The Veterans Integrated Service Networks are not allowed to change their system for contracting for diabetes monitoring supplies and equipment. Press Release: , PR Newswire, November 2013. "Sysmex America now holds Veterans Administration hematology contracts and standardization agreements with 16 of the 21 VISNs." "The VA Schedules are type contracts awarded to pre-approved vendors." OpenSecrets: Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee , which in 2012 which allows Roche to distribute Sysmex hemotology products . State Department & Foreign Operations for Worldwide Security protection for the State Department, which has . Article: by Spencer Ackerman, Wired, October 2010. Approximately will go towards the United Nations, including U.N. "peacekeeping missions". Over plus in "global health programs" funds will go to USAID. will go towards combatting AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. will go towards "development assistance", which : Agribusiness Setting up financial institutions "Policy and regulatory programs" that "improve the environment" for financial institutions. Marketing Energy and storage facilities Infrastructure Schools spreading "ideas and practices of the United States, including new education material and curricula "To expedite the location, exploration, and development of potential sources of energy in developing countries" for the "Economic Support Fund", which : Promoting "economic or political stability" Legal education training Academic training for law enforcement (the military is prohibited from participating) Prison programs "Legal reform" and "revision and modernization of legal codes and procedures" Can be used for and this money won't count towards laws limiting assistance to countries. This money can be used to create for Egypt or Tunisia, which are . This money "shall be available for economic programs and may not be used for military or paramilitary purposes." for the War on Drugs authorization for the "use of herbicides for aerial eradication". Tells the State Department to report on the cost of "establishing an aviation platform in Africa" which . for "Peacekeeping Operations" to "enhance the capacity of foreign civilian security forces" including military forces in charge of policing civilians (). for "International Military Education and Training." for the "Foreign Military Financing Program The money can be used "to procure defense articles and services to enhance the capacity of foreign security forces" Over $3 billion must be grants to Israel can be put in an interest bearing account at the NY Federal Reserve for Egypt, and the money can be used for weapons as long as Egypt meets a list of demands (including giving detainees access to due process of law). Article: by Julian Pecquet. Al Monitor. December 10, 2014. will be for Jordan. This money can be . This money can be used for : The State Department can construction "diplomatic facilities" that include office space or "other accommodations" for the US Marine Corps. The Congressional report on where these facilities are and their costs . Congress doesn't need to be notified of new diplomatic facilities if there is a . : Money can't be used to directly assist any government whose elected government is removed by the military. However, we can give that country money again as long as the next government is elected. : Prohibits money being used for "tear gas, small arms, light weapons, ammunition, or other items for crowd control purposes for foreign security forces that use excessive force to repress peaceful expression." : We will give $150 million to Egypt as long as Egypt is taking steps to . : The State Department can use its money to create a new government and "promote economic development" in Syria. : State Department funds are going towards training and equipping Ethiopian military and police. : State Department funds will also towards training militaries in Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d"Ivoire, Guinea, and Zimbabwe. : State Department money will go towards managing natural resources and supporting security forces in South Sudan. : State Department money will be used for naval forces, coast guards and nongovernmental organizations "directly engaged in maritime security issues" in Asia. : State Department money will go towards the Philippine army. : State Department money will be given to the military of Vietnam and for health/disability activities in areas sprayed with Agent Orange and/or contaminated with dioxin. : The State Department can construct and renovated US government facilities to accommodate Federal employees or contractors or expand aviation facilities in Afghanistan if it would "protect such facilities or the security, health, and welfare of United States personnel." Money for Afghanistan can go towards "programs in Central and South Asia relating to a transition in Afghanistan, including expanding Afghanistan linkages within the region." : Money can go towards military training in Sri Lanka. : State Department funds can be used to "support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking" in Columbia. 10% of the funds will go towards "aerial drug eradication programs". : State Department funds can be given to the Guatemalan army. : State Department funds can be given to the Honduran army and police. : State Department funds can be given to the Mexican army and police. : $100 million for the , which is under the control of the Defense Department, to buy weapons and defense services for foreign countries. : The United States will contribute over $3.8 billion to the , a branch of the World Bank that provides loans and grants to "boost economic growth" in poor countries. It's our 17th contribution. Over will be for State Department security. Over for the War on Terror. for Ebola "assistance for countries affected by, or at risk of being affected by, the Ebola virus disease outbreak." Transportation for national transportation infrastructure, including highway, bridge, rail, port, and public transportations projects. : For the Federal Aviation Administration. $8.6 billion is from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund so the taxpayer subsidy for air travel is $1.1 billion. for the highway trust fund. : Prohibits enforcement of until September 30, 2015. The regulations delayed say: Commercial drivers must not work for 34 consecutive hours between weeks and that 34 hours must include two periods from 1am to 5am. Commercial drivers must not drive more than 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. Truckers will be able to drive for . Article: by Lydia DePillis. Washington Post. December 2014. Article: . Trucking Info. October 2014. OpenSecrets: Senator Susan Collins of Maine inserted the rider on behalf of the trucking industry. for the 2014 election. The trucking industry also gave , the new Majority Leader in the Senate. for Amtrak operations. for Amtrak investments and improvements. Housing Forbids funding for a program that reduces mortgage rates for first time home buyers who go through "It is the sense of Congress that the Congress should not pass any legislation that authorizes spending cuts that would increase poverty in the United States." Homeland Security Funding for the Department of Homeland Security remains at the same levels as 2014. Funding runs out on February 27, 2015. Article: by Kelly Phillips, Forbes, December 2014. Expatriate Health Coverage This section includes the altered text of , which was discussed on Congressional Dish episode . expatriate health plans issued or renewed from the minimum standards set by the Affordable Care Act. includes people from foreign countries working in the United States as part of a job transfer. The effects of this on the PAYGO budget . The original version of this bill was written by Rep. John Carney of Delaware, who has taken . Campaign Contributions In May, as discussed on Congressional Dish episode , the President signed into law the , which . : Creates for political parties, the amount of money an individual can contribute to each of these new funds, and on how the parties can spend the money. We don't know exactly how much individuals will be able to contribute to political parties now that this provision is law. has a different number than the , which has a different number than . Congressional Dish calculations indicate that the changes will allow an individual to contribute at least $257,400 per year and that amount based on the Consumer Price Index. Pensions Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), pensions for retiree's who have already started to collect benefits unless a company goes into bankruptcy. This section changes the law to allow benefit cuts to multi-employer pension plans under other scenarios. : Allows a multi-employer pension plan to be labeled in five years before it's projected to actually meet critical status criteria, if the plan sponsor chooses to label it that way. : After certifying that a plan is in critical status, a "funding improvement plan" must be crafted, and benefits cannot be cut nor new people excluded during this time. : Allows the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to merge two or more multi-employer pension plans and allows the PBGC to give cash to the plans. : Multi-employer plans can be broken up if they've cut all the benefits allowed and need to do so to remain solvent. : Increases the premium rate for multi-employer plans from $12 to $26 in 2015 and then after that. : Allows , which means the plan is in critical status and projected to become insolvent within the . For plans with over 10,000 participants, - will advocate on behalf of all the retired participants. need to be met in order to suspend benefits: The plan needs to certify that it will avoid insolvency. The plan needs to certify that it will become insolvent if it doesn't cut benefits. Monthly benefits of what would be guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is for participants in multi-employer plans. People from the benefit cuts. . will determine how much each participant's benefits would be cut. for employees that worked for companies that withdrew from the plan and failed to pay. Benefits the plan sponsor submits can application to the Secretary of the Treasury and notifies plan participants, employers, and employee organizations. The notice can be in electronic form. : The plan sponsor must to the Secretary of the Treasury for approval to suspend benefits. Within 30 days of receiving the application, the Secretary of the Treasury will from employers, employee organizations, and participants on the website of the Secretary of the Treasury. If the Secretary of the Treasury does not approve or deny the application within 225 days, the application will be . Within 30 days of the application's approval, on whether or not to cut benefits. Majority rules. If the participants vote not to cut benefits, the Secretary of Treasury can label the plan a and . Access to the courts is limited: A court reviewing a lawsuit challenging a benefit cut can the plaintiffs will probably win. A participant in a pension plan . OpenSecrets: has taken over $14 million in campaign contributions from all kinds of industries. OpenSecrets: Former took over $2.4 million from unions, that we know of. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio) by Be Heard Have something to say? Leave a message on the Congressional Dish voicemail line and it might be featured on the show! Call (339) 707-0307 Help Congressional Dish Rate Congressional Dish with and leave a rave review. Download and share the FREE Congressional Dish app for and . Submit your favorite episodes to . Musicians: Share your music with Congressional Dish (and the world) - email the mp3 to Jen at Congressioanldish dot com. Share your favorite episodes with other podcasters, share with your Facebook friends, share with your Tweeps, share, share, share! Thank you for supporting Congressional Dish

CD088: What is the 114th Congress?

10 januari 2015 | 27 min

In this bonus episode, a quick overview of Congressional basics. We also examine the priorities of the 114th Congress by reviewing the bills that were passed during its first week. Please Support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! The 114th Congress passed the new rules, which amended . The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will have to estimate the budgetary effects of major bills on businesses by that would result if the bill became law. Allows the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to continue the and the . a that aims to stop the Obama Administration from paying for subsidies to health insurance companies to offset the cost of low-income health insurance plans. that would shift funds out of the Social Security trust fund. Continues the investigation. Bills Passed in the First Week House of Representatives The bill and changes the terms of the program that provides Federal insurance to businesses damaged in a terrorist attack. . The bill passed both chambers of Congress and is expected to be signed into law by President Obama. The Affordable Care Act requires employees with over 50 workers to provide their workers with health insurance benefits. If this bill becomes laws, . The bill passed the House . The Affordable Care Act requires that an employee that works over 30 hours per week is considered full time and, if the employer is required to provide health insurance to full time staff, is eligible for employer-paid health insurance benefits. . Allows TransCanada to the Keystone XL pipeline. can hear civil cases against the pipeline. The bill passed with . Sponsored by Rep. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota's only Representative. His top contributing industry is Oil & Gas; . Defeated... For Now A package of 11 bills from the 113th Congress that . Was defeated as an uncontroversial suspension bill, which required 2/3 of the House for passage. Expect to see this bill come up for a vote under regular order in the near future. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who is retiring from Congress at the end of this term. His #1 contributing industry is leadership PACs but his . Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Be Heard Have something to say? Leave a message on the Congressional Dish voicemail line and it might be featured on the show! Call (339) 707-0307 Help Congressional Dish Rate Congressional Dish with and leave a rave review. Download and share the FREE Congressional Dish app for and . Submit your favorite episodes to . Musicians: Share your music with Congressional Dish (and the world) - email the mp3 to Jen at Congressioanldish dot com. Share your favorite episodes with other podcasters, share with your Facebook friends, share with your Tweeps, share, share, share! Thank you for supporting Congressional Dish

CD085: The November Bills

25 november 2014 | 34 min

After the election, the House of Representatives passed five bills that would help the fossil fuel industry. Included in this episode are a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a bill to sell off oil-rich public land to a private corporation, and three bills that make life harder at the EPA. Finally, we end with a sound clip straight out of 1984. to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 CD085: November Bills : Approves the Keystone XL Pipeline the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline, specifically approving any route through the State of Nebraska. Forces anyone who want to challenge the Keystone XL pipeline in court to do it. Written by Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisana, who has taken over for the 2014 election alone. In total, he has taken from the oil and gas industry over the course of his career. : Sell Property in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to a Corporation of Federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to the . Allows the to before the sale is complete. The land sale from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Written by , who has taken over $1.2 million from the Oil and Gas Industry. Related Articles Michael Scherer, Mother Jones, January/February 2005. "Promoting New Manufacturing Act" The EPA would have to issue implementation regulations they publish or revise air quality rules. Written by . "Secret Science Reform Act" The EPA before they can propose, distribute, or finalize assessments or regulations. Written by . EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act Changes the make-up of the Scientific Advisory Board to . Makes all information used by the board . The EPA and the board will have to to all public comments. The board will be from making policy recommendations. Written by , who has taken over $111,000 in the last four years from Oil & Gas - his top contributing industry. Clips : HR 1422 would add an extra comment period during which the government would have to give commenters written responses. : HR 1422 would loosen rules on recusing oneself when there are financial conflicts of interest. : I thought we'd be debating war in Iraq during the lame duck session. : Rep. Pete Sessions wears a fighter jet lapel pin because it fits one of his favorite sayings: "Peace through Superior Fire Power" Additional Information by David Dayen. Salon. November 2014. Music in this Episode Intro: by (found on by mevio) by (found on ) by (found on ) Exit: by

CD083: The Story of the 113th Congress

31 oktober 2014 | 47 min

This episode is the summary of everything that happened in the House of Representatives during the 113th Congress. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Information Presented in This Episode The One Bill by Which All Representatives Should be Judged , the "bill written by CitiGroup that would allow banks to use our deposits to gamble with the same financial scam products that crashed the economy in 2008 and would give these banks - foreign and domestic - taxpayer funded bailouts when it inevitably blows up in their faces again." Travel Expenses [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="998"] An example of how much money the Representatives in the House have spent on travel, possibly because they were allowed to use our money on private jets.[/caption] The Fiscal Cliff Law : Senate report: Apple claims subsidiaries to avoid paying billions in taxes each year, InfoWorld, May 2013. Ebola Malaria kills about 500,000 Africans per year. New discoveries raise West Africa oil hopes, Reuters, February 2012. The West African Oil & Gas Market 2013-2023, MarketWatch, September 2013. : U.S. Ebola fighters head to Africa, but will the military and civilian effort be enough?, Washington Post, October 2014. Ebola FearMongering from : Millions of Doses of Ebola Vaccine to Be Ready by End of 2015, Scientific American, October 2014. : Ebola outbreak: Johnson & Johnson get OK to fast-track vaccine trials, CBC News, September 2014. Ebola and the most important agency America has never heard of by Rep. Mike Rogers, The Hill, October 2014. Ukraine : Ukraine Crisis Death Toll Nears 4K: United Nations, International Business Times, October 2014. Syria The death toll in U.S. airstrikes in Syria, broken down, The Washington Post, October 2014. We Always Give Them Their Jobs Back Voters Throw Bums In While Holding Congress in Disdain, Bloomberg, December 2012.

CD082: Last Bills Before The Election

26 oktober 2014 | 48 min

In this episode, we discuss the bills that passed in August and September, the last bills to pass before the election. Included are bills that give money to Israel, screw over immigrant kids, audit the Fed, poison the environment, create huge corporate tax cuts, and more. Also, the story of CryptoWall, the computer virus holding our memories hostage. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! : A bill that gives $225 million to Israel's Iron Dome Iron Dome By Israel Defense Forces and Nehemiya Gershoni Gave $225 million to Israel for their Iron Dome missile defense system. : Gaza Crisis: Toll of Operations in Gaza, BBC World, September 2014. : Raytheon a key in Israeli defense plan, Boston Globe, July 2014. Written by of . It passed the House of Representatives with by a vote of . All Republicans voted yes. There was no recorded vote in the Senate. : Ship Off Children of Immigrants Act of 2014 as ordered in a that discourages deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as young children. all undocumented people from working in the United States. Written by of . Passed the House of Representatives by a vote of . Every Representative from the following states voted yes: Alaska Arkansas Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma South Dakota West Virginia Wyoming : Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 of a that would clearly protect seasonal and rain-dependent streams and wetlands near streams and in the future. Written by of . The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of . A bill that allows health insurance companies to provide less coverage. Allows health insurance companies to continue to offer health plans to employer set by the Affordable Care Act until 2019. Written by of The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of . All Republicans voted yes. Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013 of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve banks within a year of this bill becoming law. a list of things in the Federal Reserve that are not allowed to be audited, : Transactions for or with foreign central banks, foreign governments, or international financing organizations. Debates and decisions on monetary policy The amount of money in member banks Written by of . The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of . A bill that increases air travel fees the TSA fee a maximum $5 each way to $5.60 each way or $11.20 roundtrip. Written by of . Passed the House of Representatives by a vote of . Jobs for America Act This bill is a package of bills that have already passed the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress. The entire bill in the PAYGO budget. Ways and Means the Save American Workers Act, which requires an employee to work 40 hours per week, instead of 30 hours per week, in order to be considered “full-time” and get employer-provided health insurance. said this bill would increase the deficit by $45.7 billion over the next ten years. This bill was discussed in . the American Reseach and Competitiveness Act of 2014, which expands and permanently extends the tax credits businesses receive for research and development expenses. The said this bill alone would increase the deficit by $156 billion over the next ten years. This bill was discussed in . the America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act, which expands and makes permanent an expiring corporate tax cut. said this bill would increase the deficit by $73 billion over the next ten years. This bill was discussed in . the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act, which reduces the number of years that some corporate income is taxable. said this bill would increase the deficit by $1.5 billion over the next ten years. This bill was discussed in . the corporate tax cuts for upgrading the inside of retail stores which said would increase the deficit by $287 billion dollars over the next ten years. This bill was discussed in . the , which is a 2.3% tax on corporations who sell expensive medical equipment. Repealing the medical device tax was discussed in episode . Financial Services the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act, which exempts private equity fund advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This bill was discussed in episode . the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act, which exempts mergers and acquisition brokers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This bill was discussed in episode . Oversight Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act which forces the government to let private companies write the rules that will govern them and says political factors must be considered. the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act, which makes it slower and harder for the government to enact any regulations. This bill was discussed in episode . Judiciary the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (RIENS Act), which shuts down all regulations (except those enacted by the Federal Reserve) by requiring Congressional approval for all major rules that cost over $100 million or affect the finances of businesses; rules that don't pass in under 70 days are automatically killed. This bill was discussed in episode . the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits State and local taxes on Internet access. Natural Resources the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which forces the government to cut down trees and lets the Secretary of Agriculture . Packaged by of Passed the House of Representatives on September 15, 2014 by a vote of . American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act the Northern Route Approval Act, which grants or eliminates all the permits needed to build the KeystoneXL pipeline. This bill was discussed in . the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, which rushes permits for natural gas pipelines and automatically approves applications that take too long. This bill was discussed in . the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, which eliminates the permit needed to modify existing oil and gas pipelines. This bill was discussed in . the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2014, which prohibits the EPA from enacting expensive rules. This bill was discussed in . the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, which shuts down EPA regulations of emissions from fossil fuel powered utilities. This bill was discussed in . the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which speeds up the permitting for natural gas export facilities. This bill was discussed in . the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act, which forces the government to lease at least 50% of the area in the ocean with oil to the oil companies, automatically approves drilling permits that take too long, charges citizens a $5,000 protect fee to fight drilling in court, and abolishes the Minerals Management Service - which no longer exists. This bill was discussed in . the Bureau of Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development Equity and Jobs Act, which exempts hydropower projects from environmental reviews. This bill was discussed in . the Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, which prohibits the Federal government from regulating fracking. This bill was discussed in . Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America, which brings back a Bush Administration rule - which was recently thrown out by the courts for failing to comply with the Endangered Species Act - which would allow waste from mountaintop removal for coal mining to be dumped into rivers and streams. This bill was discussed in . the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2014 (RAPID Act), which lets companies conduct their own environmental reviews, automatically approves permits that aren't finished on time, and prohibits judicial review of Federal permits. This bill was discussed in . This bill was packaged by of . The bill passed on September 18 by a vote of . CryptoWall CryptoWall: What is it and how to protect your systems, TechRepublic, October 2014. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by by , by , by

CD081: The July Bills

17 oktober 2014 | 29 min

In this episode, we look at the bills that passed the House of Representatives in July but haven't yet become law. Topics include tax cuts, student loans, education, Hezbollah, and pesticides in our water. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Permanent Bonus Depreciation Tax Cut Brings back a on and . The cut they want to make permanent is for . Expands the tax cuts to include deductions for . Gives corporations about how they'd like to get taxed. The effects of this bill in the . : "Enacting H.R. 4718 would reduce revenues, thus increasing federal budget deficits, by about $287 billion over the 2014-2024 period." Article: July 2012. The bills passed the House of Representatives on July 11 by a vote of . Only two Republicans voted against it: of Orange County, CA of North Carolina The bill was written by of . Federal Register Modernization Act Says that copies of the Federal Registrar . : It would have no effect on the Federal budget. Passed the House of Representatives on July 14 by a vote of . Written by of southern America Gives More Act of 2014 for . Increases the charitable deduction limit for food donations from of a person's net income . Charitable donations that exceed the cap can be . This would be . that expired in 2013 for charitable contributions direct from retirement funds. Makes permanent tax credits for charitable donations and tax credits for . Allows people to claim charity if the donation happens before tax day. for private foundations investment income in half. The effects of this bill the budget in the PAYGO budget. : "enacting H.R. 4719 would reduce revenues, thus increasing federal budget deficits, by about $1.9 billion over the 2014-2024 period" The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 17 by a vote of . The bill was written by of Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act of 2014 Changes the board of directors of - a non-profit organization that advertises U.S. tourism - from being made up of to one , with five seats reserved for people with ties to multinational corporations. It eliminates the seat for the specialist in intercity passenger rail. for the government to spend $100 million per year on Brand USA through 2020. - a $10 fee charged to people who get a visa to travel into the United States - until 2020. : The bill would decrease the deficit by $231 million over the next ten years. Passed the House of Representatives on July 22 by a vote of Written by of Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2014 United States banks from completing large financial transactions for Hezbollah. The worst for completing a Hezbollah transaction can be for . This to "authorized intelligence activities of the United States" The bill is by reducing our yearly financial gift to Pakistan by . The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 22 by a vote of . Written by of Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act of 2014 Authorizes a "entities" to launch demonstration projects of "competency-based" education programs, which would as the system of measurement to get a degree. Schools that participate would be exempted all kinds of . Projects that reduce the amount of time and/or money required to get a degree . The only to make a school eligible is that it . Each demonstration project would have . After the program has been around awhile, that number . The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 23 by a vote of . Written by of Representatives Quoted in This Segment Video Shared in This Segment Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act that schools make sure that students know and understand the terms and conditions of their Federal student loans every year by using either in-person counseling sessions or online. Students that Federal loans usually have better terms and conditions than private loans. Students will get to explain their loan status and the consequences of failing to re-pay it as they leave college. The bill passed on July 24 by a vote of . All Democrats voted yes. Written by of Student and Family Tax Simplification Act for college expenses that is scheduled to expire in 2017. The tax credit and eligibility numbers would starting in 2018. : The Child Tax Credit Improvement Act and . The effects this would have on the budget . : The bill would increase the deficit by $96.5 billion over the next ten years. Passed the House of Representatives on July 24 by a vote of Written by of Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014 of money a family is allowed to make and still claim the child tax credit. Currently, married people can make $110,000; this bill would increase that to $150,000. Single people can make $55,000, which would increase to $75,000. starting in 2015. : The bill would increase the deficit by about $115 billion over the next 10 years. The bill passed on July 25 by a vote of Written by of Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2014 States from requiring permits to dump pesticides into oceans and rivers as long as the pesticide is legal to sell. The bill passed on July 31 by a vote of . The bill failed to pass three days prior as an uncontroversial "suspension" bill. All Republicans voted yes. Written by of .

CD080: The July Laws

11 oktober 2014 | 38 min

This episode examines three bills that passed Congress in July and have since become law. The first new law will give veterans quicker access to health care. The second new law is designed to provide job training to poor people, but a hidden provision will likely take us one step closer to 1984. The third new law is another glaring example of this Congress failing to do its job. Also, Jen tells you her plans for Congressional Dish's future. July Bills that Became Law Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 Allows veterans to get medical care ; they can go to any health facility that serves Medicare patients, health centers, the Defense Department, and the Indian Health Service. Veterans are they'd have to wait for an appointment with the Veteran's Administration or if they live 40 miles or further from a Veteran's Administration clinic. If eligible, the veteran will receive a . Veteran notifies VA, VA puts Veteran on an electronic waiting list or authorizes their request, VA works out a payment agreement with the health care provider, VA reimburses health care provider but no more than they would for Medicare services. If the veteran gets treated for , their health insurance plan will be responsible for payment and the health care provider will be responsible for going after the insurance company for the money. Veterans for care at private facilities than they would have been charged at the Veteran's Administration. . Orders a , establishes a , and creates a to review VA practices. when determining performance bonuses for top officials at the Veteran's administration and performance goals that disincentivize using private health providers for veteran care . for health care at the VA, VA facility , and will be published online. The VA will for five years to address staffing shortages. and they'll receive for working for the VA. Expands coverage for , which will include . This will be . Extends a pilot program for assisted living care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries . that charge veterans more than State residents from being qualified schools for veteran education benefits. Makes it senior executives at the Department of Veteran's Affairs. to implement these changes. The bill passed the Senate on July 31st by a vote of . The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 30 by a vote of . Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina's Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act This bill was originally passed on March 15, 2013 as the SKILLS Act and was discussed in episode . The bill that became law was drastically different. Job Training Programs Keeps the make up of the boards largely the same: Most members will be representatives of the business community, twenty percent of the members must be State officials, and . The . The State boards will advise that will determine how funds are best spent in their local communities. , if they had established them before this bill became law. The goal is to come up with 4 year and plans to best provide workforce training to give the unemployed most desired by the businesses that operate in the state. The State plans . The plans are deemed approved after 90 days if the agencies have not formally disapproved in writing. will be in charge of - and held liable for- disbursing government money for the job training programs. Local taught in job training courses. Success will be measured by the six months and a year after leaving the job training programs. If a state fails to meet performance requirements, the . If a local board fails to meet performance requirements, their . Job training funds are allowed to be spent on services provided . of the funds will go towards training eligible young people who include who have dropped out of school, are in the juvenile detention system, are homeless, are pregnant or single parents, can't speak English, or are disabled. will include tutoring, paid and unpaid internships, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, and financial literacy classes. The rest of the funds will be for adults or . The job trainer providers , meaning they will need to provide all the services in the program at one location. eligibility verification, skill testing, job search assistance, statistic compilation, assistance with unemployment filing and student loan applications, career planning, and English language lessons. Training services will only be available to people . skills training, on-the-job training, "training programs operated by the private sector", and ESL classes. Companies that provide on-the-job training paid for by the government. Twenty percent of the money can go towards , which pay companies to train their own workers to avert layoffs. , with larger companies paying more. The program will be at $2.8 billion in 2015, increasing to $3.3 billion by 2020. The law establishes a Department of Labor to provide an "intensive social, academic, career and technical education" to prepare them for jobs in "in-demand industry sectors or the Armed forces". Document: Over half of the students consistently . Article: of the the participants must be "residential". Jobs corps centers . They can pocket of their funds as "management fees". There is no cap. The jobs corps centers with English classes, work training, physical education, driver's education, financial literacy classes, counseling, and recreation. Enrollees in the job corps will by laws governing hours of work, compensation, vacation time, or Federal benefits but . Work place injury compensation will be for jobs corps enrollees. Makes the Education Department to carry out any program, not just the jobs corps. Article: The Jobs Corps Program over $1.6 billion in 2015 which will gradually increase to over $1.9 billion by 2020. Administrative costs are , whichever is higher. Adult Education Program Available for people who do not have a high school diploma or who need help learning English. The providers . Part of the funds will be used to who have a good chance of being released in the next five years. The program will be given until 2020. Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 Written by Rep. Dave Camp (MI-4) Extends current levels for transportation funding . The effects of this extension on the budget . Also Discussed In This Episode Check out Jen's latest appearance on Reserve your tickets for Music in this Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD079: The June Bills

23 september 2014 | 43 min

This episode highlights the laws and bills that passed the House of Representatives in June. Most of the bills this month were dedicated to cutting corporate taxes and keeping us hooked on fossil fuels. Laws : WWII Memorial Prayer Act The bill originated in the Senate, where it passed unanimously; it passed the House on June 23 by 370-12 and was signed into law a week later. A will be installed at the Washington D.C. World War II memorial that says that President Roosevelt prayed on the morning of D-Day. The plaque will be . Written by Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. : Collinsville Renewable Energy Production Act Allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to in Connecticut and allows the license to be transferred to the town of Canton, Connecticut. Written by Elizabeth Esty, a Democrat from Connecticut. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and was supported by every Democrat in the House; only three Republicans voted against it. It was signed into law on June 30th. Bills : America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014 Makes permanent a four year business tax cut that allowed businesses to in property from their taxes. This is supposed to . Adds things that can be deducted such as , and . on what can be deducted. The amounts that can be deducted would . The effects this bill would have on the budget . Written by . The bill passed with a vote of . S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014 Lowers the number of years that a kind of corporate income is taxable . The effects this bill would have on the budget . The bill passed with the same two Republicans who voted against HR 4457 - Walter Jones of North Carolina and retiring Congressman John Campbell of California- voting against it. Forty-two Democrats said yes to this bill. The bill was written by of Washington. : Customer Protection and End User Relief Act requires traders to have enough money to pay out customer bets and adds reporting requirements, but implements no punishment for non-compliance. Title II makes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission publish the and within the Commodities Futures Trading Commission which has . The Commodity Futures Trading Commission could by a person - or corporation - that doesn't like their rules. The court can overturn the rules. swaps gamblers from having to set aside money. , which would effectively exempt them from some regulations. These changes are to July 21, 2010 (the effective date of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law). Walter Jones of North Carolina was the only Republican to vote against this bill (John Campbell didn't vote) and 46 Democrats joined the rest of the Republicans to pass it . The White House didn't issue a veto threat but said they the passage of this bill. It has little chance of becoming law. Written by of Oklahoma. : North American Energy Infrastructure Act Gives the Secretary of State, , the authority to and forces them to make a decision within 120 days of the final environmental impact statement. to modify existing cross-border oil or gas pipeline. Allows the without approval by the Federal Power Commission, which is required now. Allows the United States to without approval by the Federal Power Commission, which is required now. These provisions would be effective . Written by of Michigan, who has taken over $2 million from the Energy and Natural Resources sector. The only Republican to vote against this bill was once again, Walter Jones of North Carolina. Seventeen oily Democrats joined the vast majority of the Republicans to pass this bill 238-173. : Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act The Department of Energy would have to make their final decision on applications for gas export facilities of the finished NEPA review. The public would have to be told . This bill was written by , who is currently running for the Senate in Colorado. The bill passed . : Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America that Works Act The government must lease of the outer Continental Shelf that is thought to have the most oil and gas (according to the ). Forces lease sales off of , , and , with that are to drilling. Gives of the from offshore fossil fuel drilling and gives it to the oil States. , which . of an Executive Order issued during the that . Considers to force drilling off their shores. citizens have to challenge fossil fuel decisions in court to 60 days. if they are not decided in less than 60 days. Citizen's will be charged to challenge a drilling permit in court. We would spend to map fossil fuels for the industry. Congress would be given information about drilling leases. Would pass the - - would would bring back the Bush administration rules for oil shale development, which require fewer environmental studies and allows oil companies decide which new regulations to obey. Would and not decided in under 60 days. for drilling in Alaska. This bill was written by , who is retiring at the end of this term. The bill passed the House on June 26 by a vote of . Weed, CA Fire Music Presented in this Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on by mevio) June Gloom by (found on by mevio) Taxes by (found on by mevio)

CD077: The May Bills

30 augusti 2014 | 45 min

In this episode, we look at a bill that furthers the "new normal" in Africa, a bill that sanctions Venezuela, a banking bill, a charter school bill, some silly bills that won't become law, and a few Presidential declarations. Presidential Declarations : Withdrew Russia as a beneficiary country under the Generalized System of Preferences program Russia loses duty-free treatment. On what? says: Products that are eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP include: most manufactured items; many types of chemicals, minerals and building stone; jewelry; many types of carpets; and certain agricultural and fishery products. : Top 6 Products: Car parts, metals, tires, oil, precious metal jewelry, corn : Continued National Emergency in : Proposed agreement for with Vietnam Bills That Passed the House : State Supervision of Banks of banks if the state examines the banks for compliance with federal rules. Became Law on August 8th without any recorded votes. H.R. 3080: Water Project Funding This was the bill that privatized water projects that was the subject of episode . The version that became law didn't rush environmental reviews. There's no deemed approval of projects and lawsuits against a permit will be barred after , not five months. The bill that allows natural gas companies and utilities to pay the Army to speed up their permitting process, but added that the authority will expire in and the permits have to be on the Internet. The House version would have allowed privatization of facility management and emergency water projects but the law allows in the United States. The to privatize fifteen flood mitigation projects also survived. [caption id="attachment_1556" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Escape from privatized flood control projects in style![/caption] : to Africa Act of 2014 on May 8, 2014 "The work in the energy sector shows high projected economic rates of return that translate to sustainable economic growth and that the highest returns are projected when infrastructure improvements are coupled with significant legislative, regulatory, institutional, and policy reforms." Orders a report on "Administration policy to support partner country efforts to attract " Would be US policy to promote installation of of electricity in sub-Saharan Africa by 2020 and support "the necessary in-country legislative, regulatory and policy to make such expansion of electricity access possible." Electricity would come from new "supported" by the private sector. The President needs to establish the policy and funding strategy which includes efforts It's the sense of Congress that to banks in Africa and to support this plan. USAID is requesting in 2015. Part of the strategy includes providing technical assistance to African governments in commercial projects. : In general, the director of the Trade and Development Agency should promote United States private sector participation in energy sector development projects..." Introduced by Rep. Ed Royce, who represents . , an almost identical bill, was introduced in the Senate in June by a Democrat. The White House has not issued a veto threat. : Sanction Venezuela Act No Recorded Vote - Passed Unanimously After the former President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, died in 2013, his hand-picked Vice President, Nicholas Maduro, became President. President Maduro continued the policies of Hugo Chavez which are not liked by the multi-national corporations. For example, he recently cracked down on and for price gauging, making good on an announcement from late last year during which he said he wants . President Nicholas Maduro is . Since February, there have been protests in the wealthier areas of Venezuela. This is where things get murky. The who were apparently protesting the high crime rate, inflation, and inability to get certain products. People against President Maduro quickly joined. President Maduro has to attempt what he called a "slow-motion" coup, like the recent . It's worth remembering that the as recently as 2002. Either way, President Maduro's government has responded with and whom President Maduro said were responsible recruiting students to lead the protests. H.R. 4578 says that in response to the government's response to the protests - including the - the U.S. government will take the following actions: against current or former Venezuelan government officials, or anyone acting on behalf of the government, who ordered violence, the arrest of protestors, media censorship, or provided money or support to someone who did. The sanctions include asset blocking of money or property if it comes into the possession of the United States or a United States "person" (corporation). Exception: The importation of goods. The same people eligible for sanctions will be ineligible for visas into the United States. Exception: To let them in for a United Nations event. will be applied to people or companies who give Venezuela firearms, ammunition, technology, including telecommunications equipment. The bill also orders a from the Secretary of State on how to improve communications for activists in Venezuela, including activities to "train human rights, civil society, and democracy activists in Venezuela to operate effectively and securely." Gives to to "provide assistance to civil society in Venezuela" There is currently a in the Senate because Senator Mary Landrieu - - put a hold on the bill after Citgo - the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela's national oil company - raised concerns that the sanctions would make it harder for the company to import their Venezuelan oil. : Another Charter School Bill A public school that is exempt from State and local rules about the management of public schools. The schools can not be religious or charge tuition. The purpose of the bill is to use to in the United States and to between public and charter schools. The most significant change to the rules on charter schools is that public money would go towards charter school facilities, which is . The bill would of their Federal education money on charter school facilities. Creates the which gives five year grants to States to give to charter schools for facilities. Charter school grants will be valid for ; currently, the grants are valid for . States may . Priority for grants will be given to States that or the percentage of students that attend charter schools. The application process will include the applicant's ability to . The vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for it. This bill was authored by . He's Chairman of the Education Committee and his #1 campaign contributor for this upcoming election is , a multi-billion dollar corporation that makes its money in for-profit education. : Privately Insured Credit Unions Can Become Members of Federal Home Loan Banks Are privately owned cooperatives; they're owned by the member banks They provide money to local banks There are twelve of them around the country Most locals banks are members of at least one Federal Home Loan Bank They get their money from the global credit market. What Would H.R. 3584 Do? Allows privately insured credit unions to become members of Federal Home Loan Banks they are FDIC eligible or are certified by the State. If the State doesn't get to it in under 6 months, the . This bill was sponsored by Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio. His top two contributing industries are . : Jail for Advertisers Bill Makes the services of prostitutes who are under 18 or are forced into prostitution punishable by . Only voted against this bill and it now moves into the Senate. Authored by of Missouri. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Will I get ten years in prison for posting this image?[/caption] : Therapy for Veteran Sexual Assaults Allows veterans who were sexually assaulted to get therapy to deal with the assault included as part of their veterans' health benefit package. Passed without a recorded vote. : Permanent Business Tax Credits Expands and for research and development expenses. by the PAYGO budget scorecard. The bill was written by of Texas. The President said he would because the tax credits are not paid for. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on by mevio) by (found on by mevio)

CD076: Weapons for the World

16 augusti 2014 | 65 min

A look at the funding for foreign militaries that might become law as part of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the House of Representatives in May. Included is a look at the US funding for Israel's military, the funding for the "drug war" in Columbia, the "new normal" in Africa, the continuation of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the brewing war with Russia. Congress has passed a National Defense Authorization Act for Money for Israel After the holocaust, Jewish survivors who had just been put through Hell on Earth needed a place to go. In 1948, the United Nations decided to give them a country. That’s what Israel is- a country created after World War II for the Jewish people. Now, the fair thing to do would have been to give them some of Germany’s land. After all, Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. But instead, because of their religion, the men in charge gave the Jewish people their Holy land around Jerusalem. There was one huge problem with this course of action: The land they wanted for Israel already had people living there, the Palestinians. In 1948, the land around Jerusalem that had been a British colony was split and Isreal was officially created. In the process, Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. The people who were kicked out - most of them Arab - were pissed about it. They’re still pissed, not only about that original injustice but also because of the continued land grabs that have happened ever since. Over the years, the map of Israel has been redrawn, each time more land going to the Jewish people and less land remaining for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been pushed into two bubbles - One is a large chuck in the Eastern part of Israel, which borders the Dead Sea and Jordan called the West Bank. The other chunk is a teeny tiny strip of land in the south part of Israel called Gaza. Gaza is surrounded by Israel on two sides, the sea on one side, and Egypt on the other. Inside that little strip are 1.8 million people, 70% of them refugees from the land that now makes up Israel. In 2005, the Palestinians scored a victory in the smaller bubble known as Gaza. they built on Palestinian land - described on the TV as “settlements” - and the Israeli military withdrew their troops from the tiny Gaza strip. However, Israel would still control the airspace over Gaza and the sea off Gaza’s shore, meaning Gaza is still surrounded and controlled by Israel on three of it’s borders; Egypt controls the other. In 2007, the Palestinians elected a political group called Hamas to run their government. Hamas is openly anti-Israel - they say so right in their charter - and the Palestinians would be punished by Israel for their electoral decision. Since 2007, Israel has enacted a blockade, allowing very few products into or out of Gaza. Because of the , Gaza residents can’t export their products, which means they have few opportunities to make money. Israel has also limited what products can come in: They’ve limited food, medicine, access to doctors, drinking water, energy, etc. In addition to blocking products, the people themselves are Gaza is often compared to an open air prison; the residents stuck there and their every move monitored by the Israeli government. During this latest Israeli-Gaza war, as of this recording, with the UN estimating that over 85% of them are civilians. With their intricate knowledge of the layout and personal details of all the Gazan residents, there’s no way that is an accident. The proof that stands out in my head is the UN school - the United Nations was housing Gaza refugees in a school and told Israel . Israel bombed it anyway. Hamas - the political party currently running Gaza- is also behaving immorally. Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel and has said . They've put up their best fight, launching thousands of rockets but have only managed to kill three Israeli civilians along with 64 Israeli soldiers. The law of the United States is that it is our responsibility to make sure that Israel has a “” over other countries, which means we need to make sure Israel can defeat any military "through the use of superior military means…” As of April 2014, the United States has given Israel almost all of that going towards the military. Money from the United States makes up a quarter of Israel’s military funding. This is sold to the American public by saying that this spending protects Israel - which it certainly does- and on our end, it creates American jobs. But due to a deal made by the Bush administration, Israel is allowed to spend we give them on weapons Israel manufactures itself, meaning that none of that money is coming back into the United States. Israel is the only country in the world allowed to do this with our cash. Iron Dome is a missile defense system manufactured by an Israeli weapons manufacturer - Rafael Advanced Defense Systems - paid for with that 26.3% of the money that we give Israel which they’re allowed to use to pay Israeli weapons companies. We’ve paid over for Iron Dome; not one penny of that came back into the United States. Even worse, after we give Israel our money, they can - and do - park that cash in interest bearing accounts with the US Federal Reserve, so not only are we giving them cash, Raytheon is also going to benefit from David’s Sling, another missile defense system which is manufactured by the same Israeli weapons company that makes Iron Dome. We also pay for the Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III, which are missile defense systems that we’ve paid over and counting for. These systems are manufactured in part by Boeing and another Israeli weapons manufacture, Israel Aerospace Industries. On top of cash and missile defense systems, Isreal is also in on the excess defense article game. Israel is authorized to have of United States’s weapons stockpiled to use and call their own. For 2015, the President requested another $3.1 billion plus an additional half billion for missile defense. This is to foreign militaries. In addition, Section 1258 says “(c) It is the sense of Congress that air refueling tankers and advanced bunker buster munitions should immediately be transferred to Israel…” Bunker Buster Bomb We have a legitimate way to get out of funding Israel’s military. says that the United States may stop military aid to countries which use it for purposes other than “legitimate self-defense”. Congress did not do that. Before leaving for their August vacation, Congress quickly passed an additional . It was so uncontroversial in the the Senate passed it without a recorded vote and the House passed it The extra money law was signed by the President on August 4 and the money was on it’s way. Columbia Another thing the 2015 NDAA is probably going to do is extend the latest version of for it’s 10th year. Plan Columbia is a program for that allows the Department of Defense to partner with Colombia’s government to fight three groups: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). Plan Columbia started in 1999 and it effectively involved the US providing Columbia’s government with a military in return for new laws, although that’s not what the Columbians thought the deal was at the time. The Columbian president in the 1990’s had asked for US money for a national reconstruction plan. He got a military instead. Since Plan Columbia was originally launched in 1999, it has taken $1.5 billion a year from our pockets and sent it to Columbia for the Columbian military's weapons, training, and infrastructure. 20% of the $1.5 billion we give to Columbia also goes towards planes that kill plants by spraying on Columbian farms. The official story is that we’re killing coca plants to stop the drug trade. Columbia’s cocaine production has gone down but the poison is also working, on , who are also being sprayed too with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready plant killer. Seven years after we started providing war machines and poison to Columbia, the United States and Columbia signed the . It was negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration in 2006 and it . It expands profits of the multi-national corporations by eliminating taxes the companies have to pay in order to get their products into Columbia. Columbia can no longer tax 80% of the products that come from multi-nationals; ten years from now, they won’t be able to tax any of them. One of the industries that wanted this deal the most was the agriculture industry. Before the trade deal, Columbia protected their agriculture industry. You could bring in food products from other countries, but it was taxed heavily, sometimes over 100% for products including corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans. You know who profits from those exact crops? A little corporation called Monsanto. So, here you have a Monsanto produced poison being dropped on farms all over Columbia, literally killing Columbia’s domestic agriculture industry. Then, a deal is negotiated that allows Monsanto crops to be brought in tax-free to be sold to Columbians who can no longer grow their own food. If the Columbians still want to grow their own food, they’ll have to buy the genetically modified kind from Monsanto that can withstand the RoundUp Ready poison that rains down from the planes in the sky. If your government were working for corporations and didn’t actually give a crap about drugs, this would be brilliant and effective plan to ensure profits in Columbia. And in Columbia, it’s working. In January 2013, after the trade agreement went into effect, “Agricultural products giant Monsanto reported Tuesday that its profit nearly tripped in the first fiscal quarter as sales of its biotech corn seeds expanded in Latin America.” The trade agreement doesn’t just help Monsanto. Thanks to the trade agreement, multi-nationals are now allowed to own 100% of a Columbian subsidiary in the construction, telecommunications, and energy sectors. The product we import the most of from Columbia - by far- is oil and gas. followed by metals and coal. The stuff we export the most to Columbia are oil and coal products, accounting for 33% of our total exports to that country. Chemicals and agriculture are #2 and #3. In July, the that Anadardo, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, and Repsol are trying to get licenses for offshore oil leases in Columibian waters. International oil companies also want to get their hands on Columibia’s significant deposits of shale oil and gas, tar sands, and coal. There were three targets of the Plan Columbia program specifically listed in the law, and they are telling. FARC is the biggest paramilitary group in Columbia, a large, violent pain in the government’s ass and big time dealers in the drug trade. But the other two groups listed have been attacking oil infrastructure, trying to make life difficult for the foreign companies that are taking Columbia’s natural resources and leaving Columbians out of the proceeds. There’s an entire town devoted to the oil industry - - and the Columbian , the other two groups that are specifically named as targets in the Plan Columbia program likely being extended by the NDAA. The updated version of Plan Columbia, which is was created in 2005 by the Bush administration. It gives Columbia’s military 800 soldiers and 600 private contractors. Africa orders a report on the “New Normal” in Africa and expresses Sense of Congress that the US should achieve the “basing” and access agreements needed to support our forces. In addition, it requires an assessment from the Department of Defense on how the US could “employ permanently assigned military forces” to support the mission of the US Africa Command. This report can be classified. Camp Lemonnier is in Djibouti; it's the only US military base we’ve actuality admitted to having. It’s the main operational hub on the African continent and was described by the as “the busiest Predator drone base outside the Afghan war zone." The US Africa Command, known as , and The East Africa Response Force () operate from Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti. The captain of the East Africa Response Force told , a military publication, “We’re basically the firemen for AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command). If something arises and they need troops somewhere, we can be there just like that.” While the task force remains on call to fight anywhere AFRICOM needs them, the rest of the troops guard the bases and train militaries that have partnered with us. In total, we now have operating as part of AFRICOM on the continent of Africa. In 2013, AFRICOM conducted , up from 172 during it’s first year, 2008. Missions doing what? I don’t know. Just like in Columbia, we are providing militaries for other countries, apparently all over Africa. Here’s a quote from Vice Adm. Alexander , deputy commander of the task force based out of Djibouti: “I think the heart of our mission is trying to create militaries that are capable on their own of bringing stability, so you can have peace and security in this region,” One of the biggest propaganda tools being used to justify this military buildup is . The reason is that “” has been to justify sending troops, money, and military equipment to countries all over Africa. The 2008 outrage over Joseph Kony was the excuse to funnel to the Ugandan government - much of it going to their military. Joseph Kony has been around for 30 years but we only got involved . The outrage over the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram is being used to justify the military buildup in Nigeria, a country we get a lot of oil from. In return for access to their oil, we give the corrupt Nigerian government - which has hundreds of thousands of people locked up and dying in military detention camps - . After the kidnapping, were sent to Nigeria’s next door neighbor Chad to expand the use of spying with Predator drones. The Nigerian government was also forced to accept “international assistance” that . That assistance included welcoming . The “assistance” included surveillance drones, intelligence operations, . And it’s not just oil that we’re getting in return for our cash and military- we’re getting IMF reforms too. 75% of the citizens of Nigeria are poor and poverty has increased since 2004 despite the nation’s new found oil wealth. The only benefit the people used to get from oil extraction came from a law that said that 50% of the national oil revenue must go to the local governments of the oil-producting countries in the Niger Delta. In 2011, Nigeria's new President declared a State of Emergency in Nigeria and the next day eliminated all fuel subsidies, an IMF plan which causes the citizens of Nigeria to have to spend $8 billion more a year out of their own pockets for the fossil fuels dug out of their own land. Boko Haram - the same group that kidnapped the girls - then stepped up attacks on the government. Since 2009, the group fighting what they say is a corrupt regime. Thing is that the people of Nigeria are angry with the government that keeps them desperately poor and they have supported Boko Haram. Why do we want our military in Nigeria? A big part of it is the that Shell has in the country, which the Nigerian military is not strong enough to protect from Boko Haram and other groups that want the Nigeria’s oil wealth to benefit the people of Nigeria. And now the media is obsessing over an in that same region of Africa, and the media convincing us that if we don’t intervene immediately we’re all going to die. Ebola has been around for forty years and this latest outbreak has killed about 1,000 Africans. That is sad but it pales in comparison to the death rate of malaria, which . The miracle cure discovered out of nowhere by the US military and prompted the spokesman for Reynold’s American, the giant tobacco company that makes the miracle drug, to say that this could mark a step forward in the company’s goal of transforming the tobacco industry both in terms of remolding its image and meeting emerging market demands. All of these stories are being used to build up our military all over Africa, which is what is described officially in legislation as the “new normal”. Along with the base we’ve actually admitted to having in Djibouti, the US military also has . We have regular military bases in Kenya and Uganda. We have a US spying network operating out of Burkina Faso,Mauritania and Chad. We have confirmed troops on the ground in Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda. Just last week, President Obama announced that the US government, World Bank, and corporations will be . Corporate America is moving in - and we’re going to pay their entrance fee with money and militaries to shut down any citizen dissent. Afghanistan There are a bunch of provisions in this year’s NDAA to continue the war in Afghanistan. Extends a program that gives $400 million for the war in Afghanistan in 2015. It also says that the Defense Department can accept money from “any person” - and remember, corporations are people now, foreign governments, or international organization” and add it to that $400 million. The permission to use that money won’t ever expire. Extends authority to spend $1.5 billion in 2015 to pay off any country that helps us in Iraq or Afghanistan. If Afghanistan dares to tax the Defense Department or a US contractor, the US will withhold that much money plus 50%. This holds Afghanistan to a deal - “Status of Forces Agreement” - they made with the Bush administration in 2003. Funds withheld by the US taxpayers will go towards paying contractors back for their Afghanistan taxes. Doesn’t expire until Afghanistan signs a new security agreement. Confirms that we will be keeping military members in Afghanistan through 2018 and tells the Defense Department to make a plan for it, even though President . Iraq We're bombing Iraq again to prevent the "bad guys" from getting to Erbil. that houses thousands of Americans who . Ukraine/Russia is really like two different countries. The west side wants to be part of Europe; the east side is more culturally connected to Russia. Ukraine’s elected government was thrown out earlier this year in a coup after the government refused to sign a free trade deal with Europe. Europe wants Ukraine on it’s side instead of Russia’s because Ukraine has some very that supply gas to Europe and two ginormous natural gas formations have been found under Ukrainians’ feet which the multinationals who benefit from free-trade agreements would love to get their hands on. The law under the old government was that Ukraine’s gas was only allowed to be sold to Ukrainians. The government that was installed and now Ukraine’s gas is available to be exported. Russia, in response to the coup, took over a part of Ukraine - a dingleberry peninsula hanging off of Ukraine’s coast called Crimea. Russia had a contract with the old democratically elected government for a Russian military base on Crimea and when that government was thrown out, Russia took the land that houses their military base and is full of people who identify as Russian anyway. It really wasn’t that unreasonable a thing to do. This area was literally a part of Russia when my grandparents were born. In response, however, the war mongering psychos controlling our government are escalating this tension with Russia over Crimea to ridiculous heights. And make no mistake- we are central to the Ukraine story. The new government was one hand picked and supported by the United States and Europe. , and over The new Ukrainian government has been using our money and weapons and we want Russia to stand down - that Russia is actually fighting. We appear to be restarting the Cold War. The 2015 NDAA that passed the House, orders the from Russian attacks on NATO countries and orders to be created every year. To punish Russia for taking Crimea, the bill and prohibits the militaries of the United States and Russia as long as Russia is in Ukraine. Furthering the trade war that began with sanctions in the Ukraine Aid bill, the 2015 NDAA is poised to . This may be a problem as the for the Afghan military, a contract that may have to be cancelled and the funds shifted to an “American” weapons dealer. The most disturbing clause - which limits the number of nuclear weapons of both counties, until Russia leaves Ukraine. And now Russia is starting to fight back with their own economic attacks. In response to the sanctions which we’ve already placed on Russia, Russia has , which will cost multinationals from those countries billions of dollars in sales. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on )

CD075: The April Bills

23 juli 2014 | 61 min

This episode highlights the bills that passed the House of Representatives in April including a bill that makes it tougher for wage slaves to get health insurance, a bill that gives away weapons to other countries, a bill written for the banks that lets them gamble with risky financial products, and more. Bills Highlighted in This Episode Passed on April 8, 2014 by Changes the way the budget baseline is calculated by not factoring inflation. Congressional committees will be able to do the report on how much new programs will cost. Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed on April 7, 2014 by Starting in 2017, the President's budget must include the costs of direct loan and loan guarantee programs. Starting in 2017, no new loans may be issued or existing loans increased unless the money is provided in advance by a Congressional appropriations Act. Exemptions include entitlement loans such as student loan programs and veteran's home loan guaranty programs, loans for farmers giving by the Commodity Credit Corporation, or loans provided by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. All loans, including those made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will count against the budget. Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed on April 4 by Requires the Congressional Budget Office to analyze the economic impact of each bill or resolution for forty years on the gross domestic product, businesses, stocks, employment, interest rates, and labor supply using "a variety of economic models." The Congressional Budget Office will have to do a follow up report for every new law on the accuracy of their original economic impact analysis. Any estimations of changes in tax revenue will be done by the , a group made up of ten members of Congress. [caption id="attachment_1485" align="aligncenter" width="605"] Current Joint Committee on Taxation Members[/caption] Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed on April 1, 2014 without a recorded vote. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="600"] The Doppler radar debris ball from the tornado that ripped apart Vilonia, AR on April 27, 2014.[/caption] Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would be authorized to receive $83 million in 2014 and $100 million per year in 2015 -2017 to create a program to research weather, research public response to weather warnings and forecasts, and transfer information and technologies between government and the private sector. Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would give money to the private sector, universities, and nongovernmental organizations. 30% of the research money authorized has to be given to these non-governmental groups. Directs the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to make plans for improving hurricane warnings, data collection, and tornadoes. Gives a specific goal of increasing tornado warning times to one hour. Requires experiments to be done with new private sector produced technologies and data before the government buys it, if it costs more than $500,000,000. : "Neither the President nor any other official of the Government shall make any effort to lease, sell, or transfer to the private sector, or commercialize, any portion of the weather satellite systems operated by the Department of Commerce or any successor agency." Changes the current law above to allow the government to buy weather data from private researchers and to pay to put satellites on private land. Tells the Dept. of Commerce to create a strategy for buying weather data from the private sector. The strategy needs to evaluate financial benefits and risks with buying private weather data, figure out what to do about private cancellation fees, determine how to set standards, and guarantee public access to weather information. Allows the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Weather Service to swap up to ten staff members for a year. Passed on April 3, 2014 by . Requires an employee to work 40 hours per week, instead of 30 hours per week, in order to be considered "full-time" and get employer-provided health insurance. Rep. Todd Young has collected over $5 million in the last five years from all kinds of industries. Additional Information of the budgetary effects of HR 2575 Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan . The House of Representatives . The House of Representatives either. Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed on April 7, 2014 without a recorded vote. Authorizes the President to transfer US warships to other countries over the course of three years. The other countries will pay the transfer costs - but the ships will not be paid for as they will be counted as "excess defense articles" - and any repairs needed before the transfer must be done in the United States. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="320"] U.S.S. Gary: One of the warships we'd be giving away.[/caption] Authorizes the President to give Taiwan four warships. Authorizes the President to give Mexico two warships for offshore surveillance and "oil platform security". Authorizes the President to give Thailand two warships. The the warships would be sold for about $10 million each. The value of the warships given away by this bill will not be counted towards the total of "excess defense articles". Increases the amount of military equipment and services the President is allowed to sell to other countries without notifying Congress. Makes it easier for the Department of State to authorize weapons exports. Passed on April 29, 2014 without a recorded vote. limits the types of investments that banks can make in order to protect the money that customers deposit. This bill allows banks to keep risky investments called if they had them before January 31, 2014. Collateralized loan obligations are from middle-sized and large business loans that are bunched together and then gambled with. Because they are structured so similarly to the mortgage backed securities that destroyed our economy, almost no one was gambling with collateralized loan obligations in 2008 and 2009. In the last few years, however, the practice has made a big comeback. In April, the month this bill passed the House, . It was the highest amount since the financial meltdown. This is a bill to help the biggest of the big banks. Almost 75% of all bank-owned collateralized loan obligation are owned by just three banks: . This is not the only bill that Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky has written for the big banks. As the , he introduced a bill to eliminate a new federal rule intended to prevent banks from issuing mortgages to customers who could not afford to repay the debt — a measure pushed by bank lobbyists who had visited his office. Rep. Andy Barr has taken from the financial services and investment industry. Additional Information Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed April 29, 2014 by . Exempts expatriate health plans from the Affordable Care Act. This is Representative John Carney's second Congress and his third most generous contributing industry is the insurance industry; they have . Representatives Quoted in This Segment Passed on April 10, 2014 by This is the Ryan Budget. Same ideas, different year. The numbers assume the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Transforms Medicare into a privatized system with vouchers for poor seniors Reduces government employees' retirement benefits Puts limits on the amount that can be spent on veterans' health care Changes the way housing loan guarantees are counted so the deficit appears higher Keeps War on Terror funding off the official books. For a detailed account of the 2013 Ryan Budget, listen to Music in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on ) by (found on )

CD074: The March Bills

4 juli 2014 | 53 min

This episode highlights the bills that passed the House of Representatives in March, including a bill that allows toxic mountaintop removal waste to be dumped in streams, a bill that skips environmental reviews for new nuclear power plants, a bill that wasn't meant to become law but could screw over every government employee if it did, a bill that prevents the government from managing water rights, multiple bills to chip away at ObamaCare, and more. Bills Presented in This Episode Every one of these bills passed the House of Representatives in March, 2014 and is now awaiting action in the Senate. Relaxes the EPA rule that requires farms install spill prevention equipment if they store oil on their properties. This bill became law as part of the , although with different numbers. The previous law said that a farm would need to install spill prevention equipment if they stored more than 1,320 gallons of oil on their property and would have to have that equipment inspected and certified by an engineer if they stored more than 10,000 gallons of oil. The new law says that the farm must get oil spill prevention equipment if they store more than 6,000 gallons of oil on their property and must have that equipment inspected and certified by an engineer if they have over 20,000 gallons of oil. H.R. 311 would have allowed farms to store up to 42,000 gallons of oil before they would have to have oil spill prevention equipment installed and certified by and engineer. The author of H.R. 311 was Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas; he has taken over $278,000 from the crop production and basic processing industry. Would add Israel to a list of countries that gets approved faster for weapons shipments from the United States. Title II: Takes a $2 million a year grant program for renewable energy research and development and shifts its money towards natural gas. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's top contributor is the "Pro-Israel" lobby, which has given her over $893,000. The bill passed 410-1. Additional Information: , Reuters, February 10, 2014. Changes the rules for creating a National Monument. Requires environmental reviews of proposed National Monuments. The President can only create one National Monument per state per term; any additional National Monument declarations must be created by Congress. ’s top contributing industry for the upcoming election is the oil and gas industry, which has given him $22,000. In total, the oil and gas industry has given Rep. Rob Bishop over $150,000. Another industry that benefits from this bill is real estate, Rep. Rob Bishop's fourth most generous contributing industry, which has given him over $100,000. This bill had the closest vote of the month, passing 222-201. On Monday, June 30, so long as they say that that coverage is against the owners' religion. This ruling means that H.R. 1814 would have far wider implications than originally intended if it were to become law. HR 1814 let’s people get out of buying health insurance entirely if they say their “sincerely held religious beliefs” say they can’t get medical care. If someone went to the doctor that year voluntarily, the exemption would be nullified. There’s no penalty for lying. After the Supreme Court decision, if H.R. 1814 were to become law, corporations might be able to get out of providing for their employees by claiming that doing so is against their religion. The bill passed overwhelmingly in March, without a recorded vote, but it's future now looks bleak in the Senate. Prohibits more than one environmental impact statement and one environmental assessment per project. Allows the company applying for a permit to conduct that environmental review. Lets the Federal government, at the company’s request, accept an environmental analysis that was prepared under State laws; the State laws have to be “substantially equivalent to NEPA” - not entirely, meaning that the Federal government can accept environmental studies that are not as stringent as NEPA. The Federal government can use the environmental analysis of a completely different but similar project in “geographical proximity” that was prepared within the last five years. “Geographical proximity” is not defined. All project reviews must be done at the same time. If other agencies are supposed to be involved in the environmental study process. they will have 30 days to respond to the lead agency or forever hold their peace. The other agencies won’t be allowed to participate or even submit comments if they didn’t respond in those first 30 days. Once a project schedule has been created, the lead agency is not allowed to respond to or include any NEPA document, comment, or new information that was submitted outside the time allotted for environmental analysis in the schedule. Sets time limits for environmental impact statements and public comment periods. If the lead agency doesn’t meet these deadlines, the permit is deemed approved. The permit can not be reversed by any agency or the courts. Bars judicial review of Federal permits, with a few narrow exceptions Representatives Quoted in This Segment (in order of appearance): Forces the States to comply with a rule that allows the waste from mountaintop removal for coal mining operations to be dumped into rivers and streams. The rule was implemented in the last days of the Bush Administration and was recently thrown out by the courts because it didn't comply with the Endangered Species Act. Bill Johnson, the author of this gift to the coal industry, . The bill passed 229-192. Representatives Quoted in This Segment (in order of appearance): R This bill prohibits the Federal government from requiring companies operating on public land to turn over their water rights as a part of their lease renewals. The bill was written to settle a dispute over a that would have required ski resorts operating on public land to turn over their water rights to the government in order to keep operating on public land. The Forest Service had already retracted that directive at the time this bill passed. The bill however, would prohibit the entire Department of Agriculture and the entire Department of the Interior from requiring the relinquishment of water rights as part of a permit to operate on public land, meaning the bill would effect far more than just ski resorts. The bill passed 238-174. No Republicans voted against it. Witnesses from the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water and Power's from October 10, 2013 (in order of appearance): Tony Willardson, Executive Director of the David Corbin, Vice President of the Glenn Porzak, Attorney for the Representatives Quoted in This Segment (in order of appearance): The EPA will be not be allowed to enact any standard on fossil fuel powered electric utilities that regulates emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and a few other gases unless at least 6 utilities have already been meeting the standard for over a year; no results of demonstration projects can be included. Prohibits some specific proposed EPA rules from ever going into effect. Rules enacted by the EPA to set emission standards on fossil fuel utilities can’t go into effect until Congress passes a Federal law to set the enactment date. Ed Whitfield’s second highest contributor over the course of his career has been electric utilities; he’s taken over $614,000 from them. Electric utilities are his top contributor for the upcoming 2014 election; he’s taken over $157,000 and counting for this election alone. Ed Whitfield has also taken almost half a million over the course of his career from the oil and gas industry, over $100,000 of that for this upcoming election. The bill passed 229-183. This bill repeals the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) method of paying doctors who treat Medicare patients. The SGR rate ties the doctors' payments to the growth of the economy, which has short changed the doctors as medical costs have risen and the economy has remained flat. In it’s place, HR 4015 establishes what they call a “merit-based incentive payment system” that would come into effect on January 1, 2018. It creates a complicated system of scoring doctors based on their performance. Section 10, however, waives the tax penalty for not buying health insurance until 2019. This provision will kill the bill in the Senate. The bill passed 238-181. No Republicans voted against it. Delays the tax penalty assessed if you fail to buy health insurance for one year. The Congressional Budget Office determined that the result will be that one million fewer Americans sign up for health insurance over the next few years, with half of those being poor people eligible for Federal subsidies. The government would save a few billion over the next ten years, therefore, by not giving health insurance to poor people. Rep. Lynn Jenkins top five contributing industries include both health professionals and insurance. She’s taken over $300,000 from both. Representatives Quoted in This Segment (in order of appearance): Allows the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the Congress as a whole to to “bring civil action” against another part of the government if Congress doesn’t think that part of the government is “faithfully executing the law” Allows either part of Congress to sue over the actions of the Executive branch, any department or agency or “any other officer or employee” of the United States for formal or informal policies, practices or procedures. Before Congress can file these civil suits, Congress needs to pass a resolution. After the lawsuit is filed in a district court, the rules are that the lawsuit will be heard by a three-judge court and their decision can only be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This bill was presented as a solution to the "problem" of an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the law. This bill, however, is so broadly and carelessly written that it appears to allow Congress to sue any part of the government, individual employees included, if Congress determines they have not "faithfully executed the law." [caption id="attachment_1453" align="aligncenter" width="625"] Stars of the "President Obama Sucks" montage[/caption] The only clear winners if this bill became law are the lawyers who would get to argue these civil cases. The author of the bill, Rep. Trey Gowdy, is a lawyer. Trey Gowdy’s most generous contributing industry are lawyers and law firms, which have given him over $188,000 during his two terms in Congress. The bill passed 233-181, with the support of every, single Republican. It stands no chance in the Senate. Representatives Quoted in This Segment (in order of appearance): Ignored Subpoena Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania informed the House of Representatives that he is not going to comply with a subpoena. It's not clear exactly what the subpoena was for but he has been under Federal investigation for various improprieties since 2007. Additional Information: , Washington Times, March 13, 2014. Music Presented in This Episode March of the Pigs by (found on ) Intro and Exit Music: by (found on )

CD073: Amtrak

24 juni 2014 | 53 min

In this bonus episode, we look into the state of passenger rail service in the United States by examining the history and current condition of , the only choice for passenger rail service in the nation. The United States has a third world passenger rail transportation system. There's no denying it. There is only one company, Amtrak, that operates nationwide. Amtrak train cars are decades old, the employees are over-worked, and it's incredibly unreliable. But why is that the case? How can we do better? Passenger rail service is a worthy investment for the United States government. Passenger trains consume 17% less energy than airplanes and 21% less energy than cars. Passenger trains also burn far less carbon dioxide: The average intercity passenger train burns 50% less carbon dioxide per passenger mile than an airplane and 60% less than cars. Rail transportation is also a safe mode of transportation, especially when compared to cars; automobile accidents kill an average of compared to an average of caused by accidents on passenger trains. [caption id="attachment_1443" align="aligncenter" width="598"] Automobiles kill 33,000 in the US every year. Trains kill 10.[/caption] But if passenger trains are such a good investment, why is the United States system so behind other countries? It wasn't always this way. In the 1920’s, more than 1,000 companies operated on a network of 380,000 miles of track in the United States. 1.27 billion passengers traveled on the United States' rail network every year, at a time when our population was much less than it is today. However, in the 1970’s, after the interstate highway system was completed and air travel became affordable for the middle class, the private railroads didn’t find passenger trains to be as profitable as freight and they wanted to eliminate passenger services entirely. The government agreed to take over the passenger service that the private sector didn’t want to provide for their own financial reasons. Amtrak was created in 1971 as a quasi public-private entity to provide public rail transportation service nationwide. Amtrak was a compromise between the members of Congress who wanted to keep a passenger rail system in the United States and the Nixon administration, who wanted passenger rail to disappear. In the deal that created Amtrak, the private railroad companies would no longer have to provide passenger services but they would have to provide Amtrak with start-up cash and equipment. The private railroads would maintain ownership of the infrastructure - the railraod tracks - but they would not be allowed to deny Amtrak the right to use them. The only place in the United States where the private railroad companies do not own the infrastructure is in the Northeast Corridor, between Boston and Washington D.C., which just so happens to be the area of the country with the best and most reliable passenger rail service in the country. However, Amtrak is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure; as a result, about 75% of Amtrak's budget goes towards maintaining the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak was given two mandates. The first was to provide a nationwide passenger rail service. The second was to turn a profit. While turning a profit is a worthy goal, no passenger rail service in the world is currently profitable even in countries where the passenger train company is not responsible for maintaining the rail infrastructure. The situation got worse for Amtrak in the 1980's due to the Staggers Act, which deregulated the railroad industry. As a result, railroad companies gobbled each other up in mergers and ripped out even more tracks. Since the 1960’s, almost half of the countries’ rail infrastructure has been abandoned or removed. Today, the vast majority of the country’s remaining railroad tracks are controlled by only four companies: BNSF, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific. Bills Discussed in This Episode Amtrak has been starved of funding since it’s creation, a problem that continues today. Amtrak needs about $5 billion just to maintain old bridges, tunnels, and walls in the Northeast Corridor, the only section of the country where Amtrak owns the tracks it runs on. , the transportation funding bill for fiscal year 2015 which passed the House of Representatives on June 10, would not authorize that money, nor much else for operations in other parts of the country. Provides over $15 billion in Federal subsidies for the aviation industry. Provides over $40 billion in Federal subsidies for the highway trust fund. Provides $1.2 billion in Federal subsidies for Amtrak. Amtrak is also authorized to borrow $5.6 billion. In addition, H.R. 4745 contains some outright fiscal attacks on Amtrak's ability to function. An amendment submitted by Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia defunds food and beverage service on Amtrak trains. An amendment submitted by Rep. Jeff Denham of California defunds . An amendment submitted by Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas eliminates the the only Amtrak route that runs between Los Angeles and New Orleans. There is hope, however. H.R. 4745 needs to be merged with the Senate version. There is still time to remove the Amtrak attacks. More importantly, the multi-year transportation bill known as is set to expire on September 30, 2014, right before the 2014 midterm elections. If we want passenger rail service investments in the United States, now is the perfect time to demand them. Representatives Quoted in This Episode (In Order of Appearance) Sources of Information for the Episode Music Presented in This Episode by (found on ) Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) New Podcast You Might Enjoy Critical Thinking is Required, hosted by James Sirois

CD072: The February Bills

3 juni 2014 | 51 min

Catching up the the bills that passed the House of Representatives in February, this episode details a bill designed to keep campaign donors secret, a bill to make all regulations more difficult to enact, a bill that makes unlocking your cell phone legal, a bill that prohibits states from seizing your land for another private interest's gain, a bill that sets up the defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau... and more. Introduced by of Missouri Advertisements and/or information provided by the government on radio, TV, internet, and through the mail need to clearly state that it is paid for and distributed “at taxpayer expense”. Representatives Quoted [caption id="" align="alignright" width="268"] “I sometimes have to Google what some of the agencies in the Federal Government do.” – Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas[/caption] Introduced by Would prohibit the Treasury Department from changing the rules that allow social welfare groups to claim tax exempt status. Representatives Quoted Introduced by of North Carolina Title I: All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2014 Makes every Federal agency submit monthly reports on the status of every rule they are working on. Rules can’t go into effect until they have been published on the Internet for at least 6 months. Exemption for national security, emergencies, or implementing international trade agreements. Title II: Regulatory Accountability Act Agencies must justify the rules they make and provide alternatives including “no action” alternatives, eliminating existing rules, and “specifying performance objectives” instead of giving specific actions necessary for compliance Agencies must do a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rules and all alternatives. There must be a 60 day mandatory comment period (120 days for a major rule - which they changed the definition of to basically mean any rule that costs companies money). There will be no judicial review allowed of an agency’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule. The agencies must adopt the “least costly rule considered”. None of these new procedures will apply to monetary policies made by the Federal Reserve. Title III: Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2014 Rule makers must list alternatives that cost businesses the least or benefit “small businesses" the most financially. Every rule needs to be reviewed every 10 years. Title IV: Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act Changes the rules for suing the government in regards to their rule making decisions. Introduced by of Wisconsin A State that uses it’s power of eminent domain to seize a person’s private property for “economic development” will be barred from receiving Federal economic development funds for two years after a court rules that the State took the property for this purpose. States can get Federal money is they return the land. Additional Information : Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision Nebraska law that allowed Keystone XL struck down Richmond mortgage eminent domain battle expanding, December 9, 2013. : Richmond, CA a long shot against blight, January 12, 2014. Representatives Quoted "Dozens of communities across the country are considering a vulture fund- developed investment scheme by which the municipality’s eminent domain power is used to acquire underwater— but otherwise performing—mortgage loans held by private-label mortgage- backed securities and then refinance those loans through programs administered by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Our housing finance system depends on private capital to take risk, make loans, purchase mortgage-backed securities, and help millions of Americans fulfill the dream of homeownership. What this eminent domain scheme considers would be incredibly destructive to the finance of homeownership and would do little more than help a few homeowners who can already afford their mortgage and line the pockets of the investors who developed this proposal. Who would invest in a mortgage knowing that their investment could be stolen just a few months or years later? Ironically, this new risk to the housing finance system would freeze the return of private capital to our markets at a time when many in Congress are looking for ways to increase the role of the private sector and decrease the federal government’s footprint. Using eminent domain in this manner will hurt Main Street investors the most. Those investors and pensioners may be invested in mortgages sitting in communities considering this plan— like Richmond, California—and not even know it. They are the ones who will suffer the most from this particular form of eminent domain. Mr. Sensenbrenner’s legislation shines a spotlight on the abusive uses of eminent domain, including this in- vestment scheme, and I am proud to support the bill. I believe this legislation may have the effect of defeating such a scheme." - Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina Introduced by of California Instead of making FOIA information available for copying, it makes the information “available in an electronic, publicly accessible format”. Gives the government one year to set up a website, “accessible by the public at no cost to access” that allows us to submit information requests, receive status updates on our requests and file appeals. “An agency may not withhold information under this subsection unless such agency reasonable foresees that disclosure would cause specific identifiable harm to an interest protected by an exemption, or if disclosure is prohibited by law.” Creates a pilot program to test the efficiency of using a single website for FOIA requests. One place that will handle requests for at least 3 different agencies. Authorizes no additional money to create the website. Representatives Quoted Introduced by of Virginia Allows people to unlock their cell phones. Prohibits cells phones from being unlocked in bulk. Additional Information The House's cellphone unlocking bill: Thanks but no thanks. February 25, 2014. Representatives Quoted Introduced by of Wisconsin [caption id="attachment_1435" align="aligncenter" width="477"] Yup, that guy is a Congressman.[/caption] The bill takes the authority to police financial products and services away from the and gives that authority to a new five member commission. Four of the members the new commission will be picked by the President and the fifth will be the Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Federal Reserve. Forces the to stop Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations under certain conditions; right now, the board is authorized to do so at their discretion. The Federal Reserve Chairman has a seat on this 5 member board too. Gives the Financial Stability Oversight Board an unlimited amount of time to kill Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations. Forces the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to consider harm to the “financial soundness” of banks when it makes rules. Allows other agencies to create and change consumer protection laws. Funds the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau via Congress instead of the Federal Reserve. Additional Information Rep. Sean Duffy was on . Representatives Quoted Music Presented in This Episode by (found on ) by (found on ) Intro and Exit Music: by (found on )

CD071: Our New Laws

17 maj 2014 | 44 min

In this episode, we look at all the important bills that become laws since the start of 2014, including a law that might cost you thousands of dollars per year, a law that ends public financing of political party nominating conventions, and a law that President Obama openly intends to ignore. We also discuss the resignation of Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey from the House of Representatives. Laws Discussed in This Episode Introduced by This law has nothing to do with the South Utah Valley Electric Service District. S.25 changes the cost of living adjustment included in the budget agreement that was created after the shutdown ended which cut cost of living adjustments to pensions paid to veterans by 1%, which would short them each tens of thousands of dollars over the course of their lives. Now, we’re going to short change military members who enroll on or after January 1, 2014. Makes changes to which fund we use to pay Medicare doctors. Pays for all of this by extending the sequester for another year. It’ll now go through 2024. Introduced by In 1997, Congress invented the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR) system for paying Medicare doctors. It tied the amount of money doctors get for Medicare doctors to projected growth of the economy. Since health care costs have skyrocketed at the same time that the economy has gone sour, doctors would see a huge pay cut of 24% if the SGR system of payment were used. H.R. 4302 . Section 213 employer-sponsored health plans for companies with 100 employees or fewer. It is retroactive to March 2010. Introduced by Eliminates all public funding of “any major or minor” political party nominating convention. Authorizes - but does not appropriate - the money to go towards a ten year pediatric research fund Introduced by and Denies visas to United Nations representatives who have been “found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity.” . . President Obama , basically saying he has the right to waive it using his power to receive or reject ambassadors. President Obama claims that Bush set the precedent for waiving laws in this manner. Introduced by Green mountain lookout can’t be moved except for safety reasons Introduced by and will provide “news and information” to Ukraine & Ukraine’s neighboring countries We will conduct a “programming surge” broadcasting 24-7 to “target populations" We will “highlight inconsistencies and misinformation provided by Russian or pro-Russian media outlets” We will focus on areas dominated by Russian media We will put more reporters and “organizational presence” in eastern Ukraine We will “partner with private sector broadcasters” to create content and spread the word. We can use “jamming and circumvention technology to overcome any disruptions to service.” Congress is allowed to use $10 million of our money for this, if they appropriate the funds. Emergency Declarations President Obama continued national emergency declarations for "the situations" in: President Obama declared new national emergencies for situations in: Rob Andrews Resigns from Congress On February 18, resigned from Congress, citing has the reason when the real reason was because he was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Rob Andrews under investigation for, among other things: Spending over $16,000 of campaign funds to fly his family to a wedding in Scotland. Using campaign funds to fly himself and his daughter to Los Angeles six times in 2011 so that she could pursue an acting career in Hollywood. Using campaign funds to donate thousands of dollars to theaters that hired his daughter to appear in their productions. Earmarking over $1.5 million to the Rutgers University School of Law, where his wife is an Associate Dean. By resigning, Andrews made all these investigations go away because the . On May 5, based out of a Philadelphia law firm where his wife used to work. He will be lobbying on behalf of ., which provides IT and security for private and public institutions including the EPA, National Park Services, U.S. Corps of Engineers, US Navy, US Army, the FAA, the Dept. of Justice, and the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. He will also be lobbying on behalf of the National Coordinating Committee for Multi-employer Plans, which proudly proclaims on that “NCCMP influences virtually every piece of employee benefit legislation for the benefit of multi-employer plans.” Representatives Quoted in This Episode Music Presented in this Episode by (found on ) by ) Intro and Exit Music: by (found on )

CD070: New Flood Insurance Law

3 maj 2014 | 46 min

In March, the President signed into a law some changes to our flood policy law. What is our flood policy law in the United States? How did we change it? Are the changes good? In the United States, we have a nationalized flood insurance industry. The question becomes then, does our flood insurance system have protections in place to make sure that our tax money is protected? Does is make the people in flood zones pay enough to cover the replacement of their homes? Do the rules make sense? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are all the same: No. The was because the to offer flood insurance after recurring, expensive flooding of the Mississippi River in the 1960s. The refusal of the private sector to provide flood insurance, a product that was in high demand by people in flood zones, left the government with the option of either bailing out flood victims or creating an insurance program itself, so that people in flood zones would at least chip into the pot of money that would inevitably be used to rebuild after floods occur. The National Flood Insurance Program is managed by FEMA and has three main goals: To provide flood insurance To improve flood plain management To develop maps of flood hazard zones However, because of this dilution that private sector involvement is a good thing in it’s own right, private insurance companies manage our flood insurance program even though . But this sweet deal isn’t quite sweet enough for the private market as they still want out of the program. “The main reason carriers have been leaving the National Flood Insurance Program is #1, the profit margin is very slim. We receive approximately 30% for administering this program. Out of that 30%, we pay our agents 20%. We then pay state premium taxes of of 2%, which leaves us 8 points to manage this program and to pay for all of our costs. - Flood insurance is . It’s still optional for everyone else and many people opt not to buy it, even though they’re in a flood zone. However, even the people required to get flood insurance as a term in their mortgage agreement, often just let the policy lapse once they’re in their home or business. With only the truly responsible paying into the program, we end up paying through emergency FEMA funds to rebuild buildings for people who chose not to insure their property. Smart freeloaders know that the government will pay for them either way. Despite , flood insurance pretty much paid for itself until 2005, the year of Hurricanes Rita, Wilma, and Katrina. After that year, the flood insurance program went from pretty much solvent to . Despite the debt, as of 2012, the flood insurance program was still only collecting about $3.5 billion in premiums. , who assume none of the risk and merely sign people up for a profit. One of the reasons that premiums are so low is because with flood insurance. These people can of their own premiums, with and rebuilding their homes - often in the same exact spot where it was destroyed. For example, . The home, valued at $183,000 has cost us $1.47 million to repeatedly repair and rebuild. Another problem is that local communities often fight flood prevention measures. Communities in New York and New Jersey have fought recommendations by the Army Corps of Engineers to put up sand dunes on the beaches to protect from ocean flooding. Their reason? They might block ocean views. Another example is in Tuckerton, NJ, which on the shore and/or relocate them to somewhere outside the flood zone. They didn’t bother and Hurricane Sandy wiped out almost half the homes in their community, except for the few that were elevated by individual, responsible homeowners. Another huge issue that we’re having with the flood insurance program is that our . Now, what we’re seeing is that communities that are newly placed into flood zones by updated maps are getting pissed and demanding the maps be redrawn. They insist they are not in flood zones and that they should not have to pay more for insurance because a new map says they are in a flood zone. That’s the problem with the mapping process, we just don’t know how accurate they are. Many, many counties in this country are still operating under old maps, which underestimate the number of buildings in harms way. Our problem is not that too many people are being included in the maps - as whiny Congressmen might have you believe. Many of my constituents have told me that they are in a Special Flood Hazard Area, despite no evidence of the area ever flooding. - The problem is that the . That year, at the urging of floodplain administrators, Congress created a law that designated about $1 billion -- $200 million a year for five years -- to update and digitize the nation’s flood maps. But David Maurstad, who ran the flood insurance program from 2004 to 2008, said he told the White House’s Office of Management and Budget that the money wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of updating all the maps. The Association of State Floodplain Managers estimated the total cost of updating flood maps nationwide at $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion. $1 billion wasn't going to cut it. Even after Hurricane Sandy proved in no uncertain terms that the maps were not accurate, and were leaving too many locations out of flood zones - putting life, property, and tax dollars in danger, Congress has actually cut spending on flood mapping in recent years. Congress allocated $99 million for updating maps in 2012 and 2013, roughly half of what it had spent annually since 2004. Investing in new maps is crucial because modern technologies are capable of producing far more accurate maps. Lidar, which is collected by airplanes that shoot laser pulses at the ground, can detect differences in ground elevation of as little as 3 inches and produces data that’s 10 times as accurate as that used to generate earlier maps. And computer programs such as ADCIRC can model storm surge and wave action with far greater accuracy. We have the ability to get this right. What we haven’t had is people in Congress to care enough or understand enough to fund it. Although, even with this great new technology and even if we fully funded accurate mapping, we still have a huge problem. So, does the bill signed into law last month, which edits the 2012 law, does this new law fix these situations? Let’s look at the details. was signed into law March 21, 2014 by President Obama. Section 3: Brings back subsidies People who didn't have flood insurance before the flood insurance law and people who bought insurance after the law was passed can now get subsidies. People who paid more than their subsidized premiums would have been will be refunded the difference. In a clear favor to the real estate industry - - building owners will be able to pass along their subsidized rate to the next owner, who will then see their rate slowly increase over time. Changes and refunds will be effective by July 21, 2015. Section 4: Got rid of a requirement that premium adjustments be made based on the current risk of flooding Section 5: Caps premium increases at 18 percent per year Section 6: Gives people in areas that weren't in a flood zone before but are in a flood zone after re-mapping a subsidy for their first year and then premiums will increase no more than 18% per year until they are paying the correct amount for insurance for their level of flood risk. Section 7: Insurance writers must "strive to minimize" the number of yearly premiums that are over 1% of the coverage. $10,000 per year for a million dollar policy. Section 8: All new and renewing flood insurance policies will include a new yearly surcharge. The surcharge is $250 for non-residential properties and vacation homes and $25 for primary homes. The surcharge will expire when everyone is paying premium rates that reflect their actual risk. Section 10: FEMA can buy insurance for the flood insurance program from the private sector. Section 11: Gives flood insurance buyers the option of paying yearly or monthly Section 12: Gives homeowners the option of buying policies with deductibles as high as $10,000 Section 13: Flood insurance is not required for buildings that aren't attached to your house and that no one lives in. Section 14: Improvements made to the home to prevent flooding will be taken into account when determining insurance premiums Section 17:The will have to sign off on hazard maps to make sure they are credible. Section 19: In communities where have a flood mitigation project, the people in that flood zone will get lower premiums because of that project. The project does not need to be complete for people to get the reduced premiums. The project needs to be 100% authorized, 60% funded, and halfway done. Section 24: Flood Insurance Advocate position is created. Responsibilities included educating property owners on flood risks, flood mitigation, ways to reduce rates with flood protection measures, the mapping process, & changes to the flood insurance program. Flood Insurance Advocate will also help pepole get and verify rate information when purchasing & renewing a flood insurance policy Section 30: Gives affected communities more information during the mapping process and gives them a 30 day window after the first draft is done to add their own data "that can be used to supplement or modify the existing data Additional Information Discussed in This Episode this weekend, including Mayflower, AR and Vilonia, Ar. What a pic! RT Amazing photo from of Louisville, MS supercell that produced the EF-4 tornado Mon. night — Jim Cantore (@JimCantore) Monster MT RT RT : Tornado in Vilonia Rough damage path so far of long track violent in Arkansas (radar based) .. over 40 miles — Ari Sarsalari (@AriWeather) I friend sent me this that was sent to her from Pensacola area. awful !! — Jim Cantore (@JimCantore) Representatives Quoted in This Episode Music Presented in This Episode Music: by Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Check Out Adam Scorgie's New Podcast Buy The Union on Amazon Check out the trailer for The Culture High

CD069: Giving Away Your Land

18 april 2014 | 36 min

In February, the House passed a package of ten bills that give away or sell Federal land, most of them so that private interests can use our land for profit. To contribute to Congressional Dish, please use the PayPal link below. Thank you. :" Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is, property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal land, owned by each and every American taxpayer. In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire station, it is yours, for free. What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to close them to the public, in many cases. This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold down the tax-payers and keep the public out. This is a community asking to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not. Allows Escambia County, FL to give away it's title, right, and/or interest in Santa Rosa Island "to any person or entity", without restrictions. Escambia County has 2 years to transfer its rights, title, and interest in its property that falls within Santa Rosa Country to Santa Rosa County. The transfer is final and "shall terminate" "any regulation of Santa Rosa County by Escambia County" : "This is public land, not land to give away and, as stated before, over and over again, be dredged and used for a harbor for potential windfall profit." The concern raised by Raul Grijalva is over the . A pass was dredged for boats in 1965 but was almost immediately destroyed by Hurricane Betsy. In 1968, a permit to re-dredge the pass was denied. The fighting over this has continued ever since. From what I can gather, Santa Rosa county wants to dredge the pass again but Escambia County does not. Both counties currently get a vote on this issue. Terminating any regulation of Santa Rosa County by Escambia County could potentially take Escambia's vote away and allow the pass to be dredged. TITLE II: Transfer of Federal land rights to the City of Anchorage Section 203: Secretary of the Interior will give all rights to land it currently leases to the City of Anchorage "to enable economic development" of that land. City of Anchorage will pay all costs. TITLE III: Sale of Federal land to Fernley, Nevada Introduced by Section 302: Forces the Secretary of Interior to process a sale of 9,407 acres of Federal land to the City of Fernley in Nevada. Secretary of Interior will determine the "fair market price" = almost $33 million worth of land The map of the land will be available for public inspection, but it doesn't say it has to be available before the sale is completed. The land transfer will not be considered a "major Federal action", which exempts it from evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act Section 303: Releases the Federal government from any liability from "the presence, release, or threat of release of any hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, petroleum product (or derivative of a petroleum product of any kind), solid waste, mine materials… on the Federal land in existence on or before the date of conveyance." Section 304: Appears to exempt the land from public land, mineral leasing, mining, and geothermal leasing laws. *confusing - not sure* " include grazing, mining, a public airport lease, and a geothermal lease... The Federal government owns both the surface and mineral estate in much of the parcels and the value of the mineral estate may be substantial." "The city has said could include parks, an airport, hospital, convention center and other businesses." TITLE IV: Prevents Federal land purchases "Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been one of divestiture and fragmentation. As recently as the late 1860s, the Fed-eral Government owned 1.8 billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States. Grants to States, home-steaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date."* Section 401: No land can be purchased, donated, or transferred to the Federal government until a database of land-for-sale is created and made "easily accessible to the public" Section 401: No land can be purchased, donated, or transferred to the Federal government until a database of land-for-sale is created and made "easily accessible to the public." Introduced by Section 502: Management of will be managed according to a Bush Administration era environmental assessment, issued June 13, 2007. In October 2007, , claiming that they Bush Administration rules didn't restrict off-road vehicles enough to protect the animals and land - including land nesting birds, whose populations were declining - and sea turtles. A "consent decree" - basically a settlement- was agreed to in April of 2008. This consent decree is what is currently governing the seashore. After the consent decree was agreed to, the National Park Service created the rules - which included a public comment period - and went into effect on February 15, 2013. This bill nullifies the consent decree, prevents enforcement of the final rule, and puts the Bush Administration rules back in charge. The Secretary of Interior can not restrict pedestrian or motorize vehicle traffic in order to protect animals beyond the restrictions enacted by the Bush Administration. Protections for endangered species at Cape Hatteras can not be greater than the restrictions placed for that species at any other National Seashore. Section 504: Prohibits enforcement of a final rule regulating off-road vehicles at the seashore that went into effect on February 15, 2012. TITLE VI: Green Mountain Lookout Can't be Moved [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="412"] The Green Mountain Lookout in 2010[/caption] March 2012: A federal structure from Green Mountain wilderness area. The lookout was constructed in 1933 and had been rehabilitated in 2009. "Green Mountain Lookout, located in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, was built in 1933 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project to detect fires and spot enemy aircraft during World War II. The look-out is an important, historic and unique part of the Pacific Northwest. It is a popular destination for hikers, and it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, severe weather caused the Green Mountain Lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the U.S. Forest Service began taking steps to preserve the historic…structure for future generations. How-ever, an out-of-State group filed a law-suit against the Forest Service for using machinery to conduct these repairs, and a U.S. District Court ordered the Forest Service to remove the look-out. My bill would allow critical and routine maintenance while keeping this iconic structure where it is meant to be—in its original home. Local governments in the area, my constituents, as well as a number of environmental and historic preservation groups support my bill to keep the Green Mountain Lookout where it is. The Natural Re-sources Committee agrees. They passed this bill unanimously last year, and why wouldn't they? This bill is common sense. It saves us money because it would actually cost more to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if this bill had been brought up on its own, by its own merits, it would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening here today. Instead, this bill has gotten wrapped up in a series of very controversial and divisive bills" Section 603: Green Mountain Lookout can't be moved except for safety reasons. Introduced by Prohibits the enforcement of two regulations that all rivers to be closed to hand paddlers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Would take effect 3 years after the bill becomes law. Existing r on rivers and on five of Yellowstone's 168 lakes and a 1,000 foot section of the Snake River in Grand Teton National Park. The ban was put in place sixty years ago to prevent overfishing. Introduced by Section 802: Increases the term for new permits on Federal land from 10 to 20 years. Anyone who sues to stop grazing and lose in court will pay the legal fees and other expenses of the winner, unless the court rules otherwise. Section 803: An expired or transferred permit will remain in effect, under the original terms, until the government finishes processing a new permit or lease, which will be valid for twenty years. "The renewal, resistance, or transfer of a grazing permit or lease by the Secretary concerned shall be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement". Crossing and trail authorizations for livestock will be exempt from environmental regulations. Temporary crossing or trailing authorizations "shall not be subject to protest or appeal" Introduced by TOM MCCLINTOCK (CA): The fire also left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead timber that is on Federal land that could be sold to raise millions of dollars, money that could then be used to replant and reforest our devastated lands. In addition, processing that timber would help to revive the economy of a stricken region. Section 902: Secretary of Agriculture "shall conduct a timber salvage and restoration pilot program. Automatically deemed to comply with NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and three other forest management laws. Is not subject to "judicial review by any court of the United States." Specifically prohibits a temporary restraining order. The pilot program will be conducted according to an proposed alternative in a draft environmental impact statement. The ", which would govern the pilot program, has no details: "In addition to the Proposed Action, the EIS will evaluate the required No Action alternative and will likely consider other alternatives identified through the inderdisciplinary process and public participation." is in favor of opening some additional land to logging but is pissed at Tom McClintock for going so far and not trying to find a sensible compromise: "McClintock has called for immediate salvage logging of 1 billion board feet of timber. To understand the magnitude of what McClintock envisions, a billion board feet is equal to all the timber logged in California in a year. Much of it is in steep, remote areas. To get to it, loggers would need to cut roads and scale steep mountains, causing yet more erosion on slopes with no ability to stop runoff. The damage – environmental and to whatever is below – could be enormous. McClintock believes that such a massive operation should be exempt from federal environmental laws, public comment and court review. That is nonsensical. There is no scientific basis for the scale of removal that McClintock advocates. Besides, the logging industry doesn’t have enough trucks, crews, equipment and processing capacity for it. For instance, there are only 11 logging crews and 165 trucks working in the area of the Sierra hit by the fire, and they will be busy through the summer simply removing the timber from private lands. And even if more crews and trucks could be brought into the area, the mills would have no place to store that much timber. The congressman from Elk Grove ought to drop his ill-conceived idea and concentrate on helping the timber companies acquire the areas they target." TITLE X: Chesapeake Bay Orders a report on past and future restoration funding levels for activities over $100,000. Develop a restoration plan that will be updated every two years .Create an independent evaluator for the restoration programs. TITLE XI: Issues a patent for 80 acres of Alaska land for surface rights United States keeps all mineral rights. Additional Information The , a rancher in Nevada who has refused to pay his grazing permitting fees for over 20 years, which lead to armed standoff between Federal agents and 100 man hillbilly militia. when the Federal government revoked Bundy's permit for grazing on 600,000 acres of federal land for lack of payment. In 1998, a Las Vegas federal judge ordered Bundy to remove his cows from our land. He has refused. Since then, Bundy has r and has refused to move his cows onto his own land. Bundy with the Federal government, as it was revoked in 1993. Bundy also says that the land in dispute The Bureau of Land Management removed his cows from the Federal land - impounding them instead of putting them on Bundy's undisputed land - and Bundy and his hillbilly supported showed up pissed off with guns. The BLM last week backed down. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit music: by (found on ) by (found on ) In Kansas City? Want to Dance? Check out , owned by a Congressional Dish supporter! 816-436-5299

CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill

5 april 2014 | 39 min

We have a new law! President Obama signed a bill loaning a billion dollars and giving another $150 million to Ukraine. In this episode, we find out exactly what's in it and why we are giving money to Ukraine - and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. that was signed into law by President Obama: Key Sections: Section 3: Lists seventeen aspects of United States policy toward Ukraine. Section 5: The Secretary of State will assist the new Ukraine government, the European Union, and "other appropriate countries" with investigative assistance and training to "support the identification, seizure, and return to the Government of Ukraine of assets linked to acts of corruption." Will be aided by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury Specifically names the former President, his family, and other government officials. Section 6: $50,000,000 will be given to the Secretary of State for 2015- either directly or by giving money to non-governmental organizations -for election monitoring, "diversifying Ukraine's economy, trade, and energy supplies, including at the national, regional, and local level," expanding their access to independent media, and supporting political and economic reforms. The President will make the actual strategy for how this will be done. Section 7: $100,000,000 will be used to provide defense articles, defense services, and military training "to countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukraine." Additional amounts are allowed to be appropriated under other provisions of law. Section 8: Sanctions will be levied against any former or current Ukrainian government officials, anyone acting on behalf of the old government who the President says ordered or controlled acts of violence against antigovernment protestors on November 21, 2013. Sanctions also will be levied against Russian government officials, "close associates" and family members of that official that the President says has expropriated Ukrainian or Russian private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts, the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or transferring their proceeds from these things to other countries Sanctions include exclusion from the United States and blocking and prohibiting all transactions of property and/or money that is either in the United States or in the possession of "United States persons". This is the Citizens United version of "United States persons" as "persons" includes "legal entities" - corporations - and the law specifically says that it includes foreign branches of United States corporations. The sanctions don't apply to the importation of goods. Section 10: Annual report detailing the capability of Russia's military, Russia's space program, Russia's nuclear program. Information about Moldova People in one region are . One of those two huge natural gas pipelines goes through Moldova. Actually goes into Moldova, back into Ukraine, and then into Romania. Information about Lithuania Russia has - dairy, pork, cars - which hurts Lithuanian businesses because Russia buys 20% of their crap. March 14, 2014: Lithuania's Prime Minister said the political crisis in in 2015. March 17, 2014: A plan to establish a was "re-launched" Information about NATO Since , NATO has absorbed Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Albania, and Croatia. 2008: "A powerful military bloc appearing near our borders will be perceived in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country." - President Putin of Russia. says an attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all NATO countries. Music in This Episode Intro and Exit music: by (found on ) by (found on )

CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine?

28 mars 2014 | 30 min

The United States appears prepared to restart the Cold War and loan at least $1 billion of our tax money to Ukraine through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Why? In this episode, we look at what we're asking for in Ukraine in return for our generosity. Executive Producer: Anonymous * For an excellent perspective on the Russian invasion of Crimea, listen to : Poking the Bear and : Cashing the Doomsday Cheque of . The (IMF) loans struggling countries money but in return the IMF demands that the country change its economic laws to make them much more corporate friendly. As explained in the , there are three economic principles that the free marketeers want their target countries to adhere to: Governments must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of the accumulations of profits. Governments should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit. Governments should dramatically cut back funding of social programs. In Ukraine's case, Their elected government - an elected government that had recently and was recently because - was and it was replaced by an IMF-friendly government, which with Europe and has promised to enact the "painful" IMF economic reforms. The new government is currently being . "You know that we resumed talks with the IMF, we do understand that these are tough reforms, but these reforms are needed for the Ukrainian state. We are back on track in terms of delivering real reforms in my country. Probably in the near future, next week, or in ten days, Ukraine is to sign the political part of an association agreement with the European Union and we want to be very clear that Ukraine is and will be a part of the Western world." -Interim Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, Our government is supporting this new government. Here's my answer to "Why?". Potential Profits in Ukraine The two most promising areas are in energy and agriculture. First, energy. Poor Ukraine has the potential to become filthy rich because of . Ukraine has not one, but two, big shale formations that are mostly unfracked. Ukraine is completely , but they have been buying it from Russia. Russia has been giving Ukrainians discounts on their natural gas that that Ukraine's natural gas company hasn't bothered to start fracking at home. And yes, that's the other thing. Ukraine's natural gas industry is nationalized. Ukraine's natural gas belongs to the state, it belongs to the government, it belongs to the people. In fact, in 2011, Ukrainians passed a law that said that . No exports allowed. What that means for The People is that they will be able to use their own resources for energy - become energy independent, if you will. What that means for multinational fossil fuel corporations is that they from exporting Ukraine's nationalized natural gas. According to Morgan Williams, President and CEO of the US-Ukraine Business Council, "The new prime minister says " Second, . Ukraine has been nicknamed the "breadbasket of Europe" for centuries and in January, called Ukraine "one of the world's most promising agriculture commodity producers". The reason is that in 2013, Ukraine had their best year ever for corn. The market is practically drooling over the prospects of getting control of this land. - the group I think is really calling the shots here - said, "The potential here for agriculture/agribusiness is amazing ... production here could double. The world needs the food Ukraine could produce in the future. Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine." So Ukraine is a country with huge, untapped natural gas reserves, which can be easily transported and sold to Europe since Ukraine already houses which transport natural gas from Russia to Europe. Ukraine is also a country with fertile land in a time when other "breadbaskets of the world" are either flooded or withering in drought. Add to that Ukraine's educated workforce ripe for corporate slavery and you've got a country that the market would love to take advantage of. This is why Ukraine is a target. This is why we're involved. What Are We Fighting For? According to a , the IMF wants Ukraine to, first and foremost, . The IMF is also adamant that Ukraine needs to e, flexible in the down direction that is. Since the IMF government was installed, Ukraine's currency has fallen 24 percent, making it the . Another goal of the IMF is to "". Ukrainian banks controlled 58% of the Ukrainian banking industry in 2010, . include the "repeal of burdensome government regulations", "wage and employment restraint", which translates to lower wages and cutting of Ukrainian government jobs, via "reforms and reductions" in the health and education sectors, which make up the bulk of public employment in Ukraine. These new laws are in addition to the new laws the IMF had already gotten from the recently ousted government. Ukraine already reformed their pension system by raising the retirement age for women from 55 to 60, lowered corporate tax rates in 2010, laid off 30,000 public employes in 2011, and privatized Ukraine's 11th largest bank in 2011- selling it to a titanium business tycoon who gobbled up Ukraine's government-owned titanium in that took place in 2004. Where Are We Now? It appears that the Ukrainians are screwed. The new prime minster said he is prepared to be and he's enacting the new economic laws, full steam ahead. For our part, in our Congress, the IMF loan money is uncontroversial. Both the which will go towards the IMF loan. Timeline of Events Winters of 2006 and 2009: Russia and Ukraine waged two "gas wars" when and by extension the rest of Europe. July 24, 2010: took effect, which establishes three key principles for the Ukrainian gas market: Free Consumer Choice of Suppliers Nondiscriminatory Access to Gas Transportation System - due January 1, 2012 Horizontal Unbundling of Gas Sector - separating the gas production and marketing from the "natural monopoly" of transportation, to begin with (privatization is prohibited for transportation infrastructure) Early 2011: Ukraine halted natural gas exports to Poland's gas company after . Early 2011: "because Ukraine refused to remove subsidies on household gas supplies." February 2011: Ukraine became a full member of the Energy Community, an organization formed at the initiative of the European Union to extend the EU internal energy market to southeastern Europe and beyond. of membership of the Energy Community. June 2011: allows Ukraine's state-oil company to export Ukraine's natural gas. January 2013: for exploration at Yuzivska in eastern Ukraine Nov. 5, 2013: to develop the western Olesska field. Nov. 21, 2013: President Viktor Yanukovych - in the works since 2005 - with the European Union, instead choosing to - the country that controls their energy supply. February 22, 2014: President Viktor Yanukovych flees to Eastern Ukraine (the Russian side) . February 26, 2014: The government of Ukraine becomes , at least until the election on May 24th. March 21, 2014: Ukraine's interim government signs . March 27, 2014: The after Ukraine's interim government cuts heating subsidies by 50%, promising to eliminate them all by 2016. Full Videos of Clips Presented in this Episode March 6, 2014 , Spokesman for the White House National Security Council , Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (NY) March 12, 2014 President Obama and Ukraine's Prime Minister speak to reporters after a meeting at the White House March 12, 2014 Ukrainian interim Prime Minister #Music Presented in this Episode by Intro and Exit music: by (found on )

CD066: A Hunter’s Point of View

22 mars 2014 | 67 min

In early February, the House passed a package of eight bills that are supposed to appeal to hunters and fisherman. For this episode, Jen is joined by Cody Herman, host of and owner of , who helps Jen understand the bills and discusses whether or not the changes are good. Passed the House of Representatives on February 5, 2014 by 268-154. H.R. 3590 is a collection of eight bills, two of which never went through the committee process. The bill in its entirely also never went through committee. TITLE I: Prevents the EPA from regulating the chemicals in bullets, shot, projectiles, propellents, and primers. In 2012, a group of 100 environmental organizations asked the EPA to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle as a toxic substance because of the risk lead poisoning poses to animals and humans who eat animals killed by lead bullets and tackle. Lead poisoning has been found in California condors, turkey vultures, ravens, and a mountain lion. Livestock that graze on land contaminated with lead shot often ingest the metal, leading to lead-contaminated meat and dairy products. In October of 2013, . The law will be effective July 2019. under the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate the manufacture or sales of ammunition or tackle containing lead. This title would explicitly prohibit EPA from doing so. TITLE II: Creates public shooting ranges Taxpayers currently pay 75% of the construction, operation, and maintenance of public shooting ranges. This bill increases taxpayer obligation to 90% of construction costs and we'll pay 90% of the cost for buying land for public shooting ranges. Also, the United States can't be sued in civil court or in any case demanding money for injury, property loss or damage, or "death caused by an activity occurring" at the public shooting range. TITLE III: Public Lands Filming for Groups of 5 or Fewer This title will require a permit and a $200 annual fee for commercial filming activities; if you have a permit, you can't be assessed "any additional fee" for commercial activities that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours. Also, the government can't prohibit the use of motor vehicles from being used for filming on Federal lands and waterways. TITLE IV: Polar Bear bill The polar bear was added to the Endangered Species Act on May 15, 2008. On that day, it became illegal for US big-game hunters to bring back polar bear body parts to the United States. This title allows 41 polar bear killers to - or trophies. The bears were hunted in early 2008, but their killers didn't import their body parts in time so the parts are now stuck in Canada. to show off to their friends. This title is being pushed by Don Young of Alaska, who pushed for it last Congress too. Don Young Many of the 41 hunters are members of Safari Club International, which , with the largest chunk of that cash , after he introduced this favor to the Safari Club International members the first time. TITLE V: Electronic Duck Stamps States will be allowed to issue electronic duck stamps- a hunting license/collectors item that serves as an entrance pass to wildlife refuges- which will be valid for 45 days. 98 cents of every dollar for them goes towards conservation. TITLE VI: Weapons Should be Allowed at Water Resource Facilities Overturns current law that prohibits weapons at water resource projects. TITLE VII: Establishes an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior The committee will direct the Secretary of the Interior on how to expand hunting and fishing, promote hunting and fishing, create programs to recruit and retain new hunters and shooters, create programs to "increase public awareness of ...the benefits of recreational hunting and shooting", and programs for conservation. TITLE VIII: Open Most Federal Land to Hunting and Fishing Actions to open up land - including land in National Monuments - will not count as "major actions" and will not be subject to environmental impact analysis Lands can be closed for public safety, resource extraction, or compliance with other laws. Orders the government to open more shooting ranges and exempts the government from any liability for injuries, damages, or deaths that occur on those shooting ranges National Parks will not be affected Prohibits any further restriction of motorized vessels in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, which is a battle being waged by freshman The that people are running ATV's that damage the vegetation, motorboats are threatening the safety of people on canoes and the motors pollute the river water, and people are pulling trucks into the river and having parties on the gravel bars. Also, horse owners have created 65 miles of unapproved trails and their horse droppings have created an ecoli problem in the area. This in the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. The decision was made in late 2012 and took effect last year because of safety complaints made by private landowners adjacent to the forest and from people using the land for recreation. Kisatchie National Forest was the only public land where deer hunting with dogs was allowed. Additional Information Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by ) by )

CD065: Federal Intervention in California Water Rights

9 mars 2014 | 41 min

On February 5, the House of Representatives passed a bill that takes away California's right to divide its dwindling water supply. The bill forces California to take water away from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta and give it to Agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley, voiding a bunch of State and environmental laws in the process. Summary of the Bill This is the second time the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed this bill. . TITLE I: Eff The Fish [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="360"] Water would be diverted away from this delta and given to Big Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley[/caption] Section 101: Makes sure that water currently dedicated to fish and wildlife is given Central Valley Project contractors by December 31, 2018. Most in the San Joaquin Valley. Section 102: New terms for water contracts: Eliminates a provision that makes sure the EPA approves new contracts for water delivery. Extends the renewal length of existing contracts from 25 years to 40 years and eliminates requirements for environmental reviews Adds a provision that contracts must only charge water customers for the water actually delivered Section 105: Water usage will be prioritized to go towards agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes Section 107: Private for-profit organizations would be eligible for water storage and delivery contracts paid for with taxpayer money, which is not currently allowed. If by September 30, 2018, the Central Valley doesn't get an additional 800,000 acre-feet of water, all non-mandatory water uses will be cut off until the Central Valley gets their water. Section 108: Rules will revert back to the law as of 1994. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="314"] The delta smelt, the "stupid little fish" the House GOP is pretending is the only species affected by drying up the delta[/caption] Operations of this new water plan "shall proceed without regard to the Endangered Species Act" Prohibits the Federal government and any agency of the State of California from enforcing a State law that restricts water usage for the Central Valley Project or State Water Project (which gives water to Southern California) to protect any species affected by this new water diversion. Prohibits the State of California from enforcing any of their laws that restricts Central Valley "water rights" "under the Public Trust Doctrine. No costs associated with diverting water to Central Valley contractors will be paid by Central Valley contractors "California law is preempted" from restricting the size of a fish allowed to be taken out of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta. Section 111: Federal agencies can not be forced to change their actions by a National Environmental Protection Act determination. *New to the 113th Congress version* Section 112 & 113: Gives 10 year water contracts to the Oakdale, South San Joaquin, and Calaveras County water districts if it doesn't take water away from the Central Valley *New to the 113th Congress version* Section 114: A pilot program to remove "non-native" bass species from the Stanislaus River. The districts will pay 100% of the costs The government "shall issue" permits for the program under the Endangered Species Act within 180 days; if it's not done in 180 days, the permits "shall be deemed approved" Permitting can be outsourced to "any qualified private contractor' National Environmental Protection Act "shall not apply" to permitting for the program. "Any restriction imposed under California law" on catching fish in the Stanislaus River "is herby void and is preempted" Pilot fish-murdering program will sunset in seven years. TITLE II: Overturns a The Settlement ruled in 2004 that the Bureau of Reclamation illegally dried the San Joaquin River and ruled that they will have to release water from the Friant Dam for the first time in 55 years in order to allow the fish - specifically salmon- in the river to survive. The lawsuit was first filed in 1998 and was one of California's longest running water disputes. It also restores water supplies to farmers near Stockton Section 201: Repeals the settlement and enacts a whole new plan. The new plan "preempts and supersedes any State law" that imposes stricter requirements. Central Valley water contractors are allowed to sue the Federal government if it fails to enact the new plan. Section 211: Repeals a requirement that salmon be reintroduced to the San Joaquin River TITLE III: Payments to Central Valley water contractors Section 301: Federal government has to reimburse water contractors for construction costs already accrued by January 31, 2018; future costs need to be reimbursed by the government within five years. Power revenues can't be used towards construction cost reimbursement TITLE IV: Water Allocations Section 403: Agricultural water contractors in the Central Valley will get 100% of their promised water in Wet - Below Normal years, 75% in a "dry" year, and "50% in a "Critically dry" year Section 404: The Federal government must make sure that the Endangered Species Act and goals of "addressing environmental needs" do not cause any "adverse water supply or fiscal impacts" to Central Valley water contractors. TITLE V: Precedent Section 501: The coordination of water rights "require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights", says "these circumstances are unique to California", and therefore "nothing in this Act shall serve as precedent in any other State." Section 502: "Nothing in this Act shall affect in any way the and associated Executive Order issued by Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on January 17, 2014." Representatives Quoted in This Episode (In Order of Appearance) Additional Information by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2014. Jennifer Briney's appearance on of Congressional Dish supporter David's 12 year old son, Sam Levin, and his impressive musical talents Music in this Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on ) Get Out of Our House by (found on )

CD064: Chemicals Shall Spill

24 februari 2014 | 48 min

In this episode, we catch up on all the bills that passed the House of Representatives in January, including a bill to protect chemical storage companies from having to pay for their messes, a few bills to damage ObamaCare, and a bill to make sure private health insurance companies can't pay for abortions. Information Presented in This Episode Mel Watt Resigns On January 7, of North Carolina's 12th district resigned to become Director of the after being appointed to the position by President Obama. The Federal Housing Finance Agency was created during the 2008 financial meltdown, a meltdown created largely by giant private banks chopping up bad mortgages, mixing them with good mortgages, and selling them to other companies such as Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA is . because Fannie and Freddie are more heavily regulated than private banks and create a basement of rules that banks sort-of have to play by. Private banks want the "free market" to control mortgages so that they can, once again, do whatever they want and make enormous profits with new financial scams models. Last August and again in the State of the Union, and voiced his support for getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in favor of more private banker control of our mortgages. Who will President Obama's choice to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac side with? Well, former Representative Mel Watt's top two campaign contributors over the course of his Congressional career were Bank of America and the American Bankers Association. In total, he took from the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector. Representative Watt's former district, North Carolina's 12th district, is a funny shaped, likely gerrry-mandered district that cuts through the center of the state; it includes portions of Charlotte, Salisbury, and Lexington. The district will remain unrepresented until the November election. On January 9, the House passed H.R. 2279. The one good thing about this bill is that it would require owners of chemical storage facilities to report to their states the quantities of dangerous chemical that they store in their buildings. This is a direct response to the giant explosion at the West Fertilizer Company in West Texas, which took place on the same week as the Boston Marathon bombing, killed five times as many people, but didn't get nearly as much press coverage. happened after the building caught fire and ignited ammonium nitrite - the same stuff used in the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing- which was being stored in the building in huge quantities which were never reported to Texas regulators or the Department of Homeland Security. The building had not been inspected by Federal worker safety regulators since 1985, when it was cited for improper storage of dangerous chemicals and given a $30 fine. It had been fined again in 2012 by the Department of Transportation for improper storage of dangerous chemicals. The explosion killed fifteen people, injured 160, and destroyed 50 homes. So had this bill been law early last year, in theory, Texas and the Department of Homeland Security would have known how much the company was storing and may have done inspections more regularly. That's a good thing. But that's where the good things stop. The company responsible for the West, Texas explosion which wasn't nearly enough to cover the damage they caused. The damage was estimated at $100 million, at least. The State of Texas has no requirement for storage facilities to have any insurance, and so FEMA had to pay 75% of the costs of the damage. Despite the fact that the Federal government had to pick up the tab for that explosion, H.R. 2279 would make it more difficult for the Executive Branch, and therefore the Federal government, to require companies that store hazardous materials to have insurance or cash on hand to pay for their accidents; it prohibits the Feds from requiring any more insurance than the States require. Rep. C, argued for H.R. 2279 on the House floor on January 9; he is the author of the bill: "Solid waste must be disposed of in a responsible, efficient, and environmentally friendly manner; but there is no need for overly burdensome regulations that put a strain on businesses." In addition, the law currently says that the President needs to create and annually update a list of facilities with hazardous materials and that each State must designate one facility as their most dangerous. H.R. 2279 says the States no longer need to do this and replaces that requirement with one that says the President can't add a facility to the list if the State objects. Even if the States wanted to, however, the bill says the States can't add facilities to the list any more than once every five years. On the very same day that the House of Representatives were passing H.R. 2279, chemicals that were being stored at a facility owned by - a facility that - spilled into the Elk River near Charleston, West Virginia poisoning the water supplies of over 300,000 people. And just like in Texas, the chemical storage facility in West Virginia was subject to almost no State or local regulations. expressed his concerns about HR 2279 while, unbeknownst to him, poisonous chemicals were gushing into the Elk River: "And I am especially troubled by provisions in the bill that enable sites to veto sites from being added to the Superfund National Priorities List, as well as the provision that weakens the requirement for companies who deal with hazardous materials to carry insurance to cover contamination threats. Absent this insurance requirement, it will be easier for a company to go bankrupt and shirk its responsibility to clean up contamination that it has caused" Which is nine days after the spill. At the time Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy, against the company, all of which have been put on hold. The bill passed the House of Representatives 225-188 with mostly Republicans voting for it and mostly Democrats voting against it. All three Representatives from the state of West Virginia voted for the bill. Voting yes on H.R. 2279 was , who represents the part of West Virginia directly affected by the spill. A week after she voted for the bill to make it harder to regulate chemical storage facilities while her own constituents got poisoned, she gave a speech which said this on January 16: "For more than two decades, no government agency inspected this facility. Precious response time was lost be-cause Freedom Industries did not immediately report the spill, and responders did not have sufficient information about the chemical. We must examine our existing laws at all levels of government—local, State, and Federal—and find the gaps that allowed this spill to occur. " By voting yes, she did not do what was best for her constituents; she did what was best for Freedom Industries by trying to make it harder for the Federal Government to police them, yet instead of apologizing for that vote a week later, she pretended the vote never happened. As always, the reason for her vote is most easily found in the financials. Shelley Moore Capito has taken over $800,000 from the mining industry, and Freedom Industries was storing a chemical used to "clean coal" in the facility that poisoned - and - her constituents. Shelley Moore Capito is running for one of West Virginia's two Senate seats in November. On January 10, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3811, which would change the law to say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have two days to tell us if there has been a security breach on healthcare.gov if our personal information was stolen. In reality, there on healthcare.gov. Seems to me to be an unnecessary bill aimed to make people think there have been security breaches. H.R. 3811 passed the House of Representatives 291- 122. On January 14, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2274, which exempts mergers and acquisition brokers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mergers and acquisition brokers specialize in the sale of private businesses; they help big companies gobble up little companies. basically saying that if a merger and acquisition broker is not dealing at all with securities - if the broker doesn't gamble or "trade" items that they don't actually possess- then they don't have to register with the SEC, rendering this bill unnecessary. The SEC has ten conditions the merger and acquisitions broker must obey in order to not register; this bill only has two, meaning that the SEC rules protect the financial system better than this bill. H.R. 2274 passed the House of Representatives unanimously. Under the Presidential Records Act, a former President can restrict access to his records for twelve years. After that, an Executive Order says that the former President can appeal to the current President to keep his records secret by claiming executive privilege. In essence, the decision rests with the current President and can be overturned by the courts. This bill makes that rule an actual, passed-by-Congress law, instead of a rule by Executive Order, as has been the case since the Reagan administration. It also puts in place procedures with deadlines for a former President to claim continued executive privilege. One provision says that the former President must make the request personally, which I think means that his records are fair game once he's dead. Passed the House of Representatives 420-0. The Budget On January 15, the House of Representatives passed the 2014 budget, which has been signed into law. The law was covered in detail in Right now, the executive branch is releasing required monthly reports on enrollment data for health insurance plans. H.R. 3362 would require the Secretary of Health and Human services to do a detailed report every week which includes every individual state's enrollment numbers, hits on the health care exchange websites, number of customer chats, number of customer phone calls, how many people enroll per zip code, what kind of plan each person picked, how many people logged into the websites, the ages of new enrollees, the number of new people in Medicaid, an estimation of the cost of tax credits and more. These weekly reports would have to be issued until March 2015. H.R. 3362 also requires the government to publicly publish the names, addresses, and phone numbers of every person trained to help Americans get health insurance coverage - called navigators. But the bottom line is that this will never become law because, once again, it's would have to be signed by President Obamacare, who has no reason to give his administration extra, unnecessary busy work. 259 members of the House voted for this doomed bill. The day of the State of the Union, the Republicans passed a bill that restricts our access to abortions. First, the bill prohibits any Federal money from going towards abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, which is already Federal law. The bill changes current law by dictating what private insurance companies will and will not be allowed to cover. Any health care plan offered to Federal employees which will be paid for by their employer - the government - can not offer abortion coverage. The employees would be allowed to get separate abortion coverage with their own money. The bill also allows States and local governments to get extra abortion coverage for their employees; one place that doesn't work for though is the District of Columbia which is part of the Federal government. This bill also prohibits any tax credits from going to a person or company who chooses a health care plan on an exchange that includes abortion coverage. In addition, the bill would stop the private health insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortions because it changes the definition of "qualified health plans" so that ones that offer abortions are no longer qualified and therefore wouldn't be able to sell those plans on the exchanges. H.R. 7 passed the House of Representatives 227-188. Music in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on ) Jennifer Briney's Upcoming Guest Appearance , hosted by Nick Seuberling Also recommended: (a podcast about the Cincinnati Bengals), hosted by Nick Seuberling

CD063: 2013 The Year in Review

15 februari 2014 | 90 min

In this episode, Jen and Joe recap all the bills that passed the House of Representatives and were covered on Congressional Dish in 2013. Also, an update on the debt ceiling. Music in This Episode: Intro and Exit Music: by , by , Debt Ceiling See how your representative voted on until March 16, 2015, which passed the House on February 11 and the Senate on February 12. If we don't suspend the debt ceiling, we probably will not default on our debt as . However, the only way that we would avoid a default would involve a scenario along the lines of the one , which involved slashing the Federal government and even eliminating whole departments. The debt ceiling either needs to be raised or suspended or the government drastically slashed by February 27. Bills Covered by Congressional Dish in 2013 (In Chronological Order) (Agreed to 1/3/13) Highlighted in episode Members can take private jets using government money (CD016) Speaker John Boehner , but this promise wasn't put in the official House rules. (112th Congress) (Passed House & Senate 1/1, LAW 1/2) Highlighted in episode Extended unemployment insurance Extended Farm bill until September 2013 Extended the Bush tax cuts Increased capital gains taxes from 15% to 20% Extended the college and child tax credits Multinationals -including banks- don't have to pay taxes on income from foreign subsidiaries (Passed House 1/15, Senate 1/28, LAW 1/29) Highlighted in episode Sandy was on 10/29/12, funding for the recovery was finally provided on 1/15/13 All Reps from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas voted against it (Passed Senate 2/27, House 3/4, LAW 3/13) Highlighted in episode Loosened the definition of an "emergency" to include "threat justifying emergency authorized use" of unapproved medical devices (Passed House 1/23, Senate 1/31, LAW 2/4) Highlighted in episode Suspended the debt ceiling until May 18, 2013 House & Senate both have to pass budgets by April 15, 2013 (which they did). Would have paid Congress no matter whether or not they passed their budgets; they would have been back paid. Highlighted in episode Public & private non-profits need to help CDC with surveillance systems in order to get pediatric research grants but provided no money. (Passed House 2/6) Highlighted in episode President would have to submit a second budget if his first budget wasn't balanced. (Passed House 2/12) Highlighted in episode Gives grants to States to streamline requirements for veteran EMTs to become civilian EMTs (Passed House 2/13) Highlighted in episode The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits direct funding of religious buildings [caption id="attachment_419" align="alignright" width="150"] A small conduit hydro-electric project[/caption] (Passed House 2/13, Senate 8/1, LAW 8/9) Highlighted in episode Fast tracks hydro-power projects on existing dams. (Passed House 2/15) Highlighted in episode (Passed Senate 2/12, House 2/28, LAW 3/7) Highlighted in episode Adds stalking and date rape to list of punishable offenses Cyber stalking counts as stalking Most of the funding decreased from previous levels (Passed House 3/12) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 3/13) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 3/15, S. 1911 introduced in Senate committee 1/9/2014) Highlighted in episode Would effectively put decisions on welfare-to-work training programs in corporate control by changing the make-up of local boards. Would have required layoffs of Federal workers by consolidating 35 programs into one. (Passed Senate 3/20, House 3/21, LAW 3/26) Highlighted in episodes , , , and Funded the government until September 30, 2013 Included the (passed House 4/10, Senate 8/1, LAW 8/9) Highlighted in episode Authorizes small hydro-power projects and determines who is first in line for the power (passed 4/12) Highlighted in episode Board would have had to stop all work & not enforce decisions make after 1/4/2012 Could have restarted if recess appointments were ruled Constitutional or at start of second session of 113th All about which may have been unconstitutional S. 716: Gut the STOCK Act (Passed Senate, 4/11, House 4/12, LAW 4/15 - Passed Congress with no recorded votes) Highlighted in episode Exempted Congressional staff and executive branch employees from financial reporting. Eliminated the searchable website for financial reports. (passed House 4/15) Highlighted in episode Can be waived (Passed House 4/16 by 416-0) Highlighted in episode Provides a framework for the coordination of information security between civilian, national security, and law enforcement communities. Focuses on automated and continuous monitoring of information systems. Acknowledges “market solutions for the protection of critical information systems important to the national defense and economic security of the National that are designed, built, and operated by the private sector.” Authorizes "secure facilities" for storing information Authorizes having enough staff with classified clearance to analyze that information (Passed House 4/16) Highlighted in episode Trains cyber-security professionals with taxpayer money & creates a strategy for buying private sector cloud services (Passed House 4/18) Highlighted in episode Director of National Intelligence would create procedures for giving "cyber threat information" to private companies and utilities Information can be passed from private companies to DHS and DOJ Information given by the private companies to the government will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act A company that shares cyber intelligence with the government will be exempt from civil or criminal liability if they act "in good faith" The military and intelligence communities can't control, change or direct in any way the cyber-security efforts of a private company. Says US citizens can not be targets for surveillance (Passed House 4/26, Senate 9/26, LAW 10/2) Highlighted in episode Changes the way we sell our stockpile of helium so we get a fairer price & end the global helium shortage by allowing the government to sell our helium (Passed House 5/9) Highlighted in episode Tells Treasury to make interest payments and social security payments when we hit the debt ceiling (Passed House 5/8, S. 1623 Introduced in Senate committee 10/30) Highlighted in episode Allows time and a half in paid time off instead of time and a half pay for overtime, if the employee chooses that option (Passed House 5/16) Highlighted in episode Introduced by Michelle Bachmann (Passed House 5/17) Highlighted in episode Forces SEC to do a cost-benefit analysis on their regulations of Wall Street SEC must explain why they didn't include suggestions made by the financial industry SEC must review all existing regulations every five years (Passed House 5/20, Senate 5/22, LAW 6/2) Highlighted in episode The Bush Administration version was ruled unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment This changes it so that you get busted for fraud if you fake having a medal for financial gain (Passed House 5/20) Highlighted in episode Penalties that currently apply when a US ship or ship in US territory is attacked would be applied worldwide and would include attacks on corporate ships. (Passed House 5/22) Highlighted in episode [caption id="attachment_580" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Tar sands oil next to a home in Mayflower, Arkansas. Source: EPA[/caption] Bill by Lee Terry of Nebraska Would exempt Keystone XL from the law requiring a Presidental permit Government can waive any law or regulation in order to issue the Keystone XL permit (Passed Senate 7/24, Passed House 7/31, LAW 8/9) Highlighted in episodes and Caps student loan interest rates at 8.25% for undergrads and 9.5% for graduate level students (Passed Senate 8/1, House 8/2, LAW 8/9) Highlighted in episode Creates procedures for expediting and private TSA screenings for injured and disabled veterans (Passed House 6/4) Highlighted in episode Never went to conference with the Senate & was funded via Jan 2014 omnibus budget (Passed Senate 5/8, house 6/3, LAW 6/13) Highlighted in episode Reauthorizes a fee system for accelerating testing or distribution of animal antibiotics Caps the amount of revenue the fees can bring into the government (Passed House 6/3) Highlighted in episode Allows so much time for implementation that the soonest the system would exist is 2028 Prohibits states from enacting stricter standards (Passed House 6/12 by 420-2) Highlighted in episode Makes SEC (Wall Street Police) liable for lawsuits that arise from them sharing information with other regulators. (Passed House 6/12 by 411-12) Highlighted in episode (Passed 6/12) Highlighted in episode The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and SEC would have to issue the exact same rules. Would exempt the biggest foreign swap gamblers from United States swaps regulations. "This really just gives banks permission to go around the world regulator shopping." (Passed 6/14, Final version LAW 12/26) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 6/18, S. 1670 introduced to Senate committee 11/7) Highlighted in episode Doctors can't perform an abortion on a fetus that is 20 weeks or older. Doctors can be fined and sentenced to five years in prison. The mother can't be prosecuted. Exceptions: Life of the mother in danger, rape, or incest. (Passed House 6/27) Highlighted in episode Approves the treaty with Mexico allowing drilling the Western Gap - in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. Slipped into the 2014 budget and is now LAW (Passed House 6/28) Highlighted in episode Forces Federal government to lease at least 50% of the unleased Outer Continental Shelf with the most fossil fuel resources Increase oil and gas production Forces leases off of the east coast and southern California Limited the content of environmental impact studies (Passed House 7/10) Highlighted in episode Shorted renewable energy by $1.9 billion Shorted power grid upgrades, fuel efficiency, energy efficient buildings, geothermal energy, wind energy, energy assistance for the poor, environmental clean ups, and natural gas. Gave more than requested for nuclear energy and fossil fuels. (Passed House 7/30, Senate 10/31, LAW 11/13) Highlighted in episode Public schools will be allowed to stockpile epinephrine for students with food allergies and train staff to administer it (Passed House 7/25) Highlighted in episode Coal industry will have 10 years of meet groundwater protection standards EPA cannot categorize waste from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and tar sands as ‘hazardous waste’. (Passed House 8/1) Highlighted in episode EPA is not allowed to issue a regulation costing over $1 billion The social cost of carbon – climate change, cancer rates, etc. – can’t be used in a cost-benefit analysis (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode Authored by Forces Federal agencies to get Congressional approval for all major rules that cost over $100 million, affect the finances of businesses, or create a carbon tax If Congress does nothing for 70 working days, the rule can’t be enacted None of this is subject to judicial review Monetary policy by the Federal Reserve is exempted (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode Government conferences capped at $500,000 but private companies can make up the rest. All conference materials must be posed online. (Passed House 8/1) Highlighted in episode Makes it easier to fire high level Federal employees Caps some Federal worker bonuses and prohibits any bonus at all for others. (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode Each agency must establish customer service standards but will get no extra funding to do so. (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 7/31) Highlighted in episode and (Passed House 8/2) Highlighted in episode IRS prohibited from enforcing tax provisions of Affordable Care Act (Passed House 7/19) Highlighted in episode Expands the number of charter schools Gives charter schools as much taxpayer money as real public schools Charter school programs can be provided by for-profit businesses Public money will go to private schools and tutoring Sex education must teach abstinence to get Federal funds High schools students contact information must be given to military recruiters (Passed House 6/6) Highlighted in episode Never went to conference & was funding in the omnibus budget in January 2014. (Passed Senate 7/19, House 9/10, LAW 9/18) Highlighted in episode Allows permits for small hydroelectric projects and a natural gas pipeline to cut through an Alaska national park. (Passed House 9/9) Highlighted in episode FCC does a 25 country comparison of data transmission speeds and price; this bill repeals that report. (Passed House 9/12, passed House & Senate 10/16, LAW 10/17) Highlighted in episode and The bill was the "vehicle" to end the shutdown. The text was completely changed Prevents Americans from getting subsidies until the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a subsidy verification system in place. Funded government until 1/15/14 Suspended debt ceiling until 2/7/14 Killed the Monsanto Protection Act (Passed House 9/19) Highlighted in episode Was Titled the "Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act" (Passed House 9/17) Highlighted in episode Done on behalf of wealthy casino-owning tribes in Arizona that don't want the competition (Passed House 9/17, Senate 9/25, LAW 10/2) Highlighted in episode South American wants us out of their business; we're saying we're not going away. (Passed House 9/18) Highlighted in episode Exempts mining projects from environmental regulations. (Passed House 9/25) Highlighted in episode Exempts an old wooden boat from fire safety standards for 10 years so it can carry passengers overnight The Shutdown Bills The House CR that didn’t really defund the Affordable Care Act () The Senate CR that has not had a vote yet in the House () The House CR that delays the Affordable Care Act for year () The House CR that delays the Affordable Care Act & kills employer-paid health benefits for Congress and their staff. The House bill that requests a conference committee with Senate Funds National Parks and some museums Funds operations in Washington D.C. Funds veterans benefits Funds the National Institutes of Health Funds the National Guard and reserves H.R. 2275 finally ended the shutdown (see above) Back to Work (Passed House 10/23, Passed Senate with changes 10/31) Highlighted in episode Speeds up and consolidates studies Speeds up permitting by letting utilities and natural gas companies pay the Army Speeds up environmental reviews Prohibits lawsuits after five months Privatizes maintenance and management of public water infrastructure (Passed House 10/30) Highlighted in episode Bill written mostly by Citigroup lobbyists Makes foreign banks eligible for a bailout Allows bailout-eligible banks to trade in credit default swaps (Passed House 10/29) Highlighted in episode Prevents a Department of Labor regulation forcing brokers to do what is best for their customers, not themselves (Passed House 11/12, Senate 11/14, LAW 11/27) (Passed Senate 6/17, House 11/12, LAW 11/21) Highlighted in episode (Passed Senate 10/28, House 11/12, LAW 11/21) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 11/12, Senate 12/10, LAW 12/20) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 11/13) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 11/14) Highlighted in episode Imposes mandatory financial penalties for filing “frivolous” lawsuits. Eliminates the 21-day grace period to withdraw a lawsuit without financial penalty. (Passed House 11/15) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 11/12) Highlighted in episodes and Streamline reporting standards and publish spending data on USAspending.gov (Passed House 11/20) Highlighted in episode Speeds up oil and gas permitting Forces us to lease our land to fossil fuel companies Leases land for oil shale development - a technology that still doesn't exist Limits Americans' access to the courts to stop drilling Severely limit Native Americans' access to the courts to stop drilling (Passed House 11/20) Highlighted in episode Prevents Federal regulation of fracking Rigs studies to only examine benefits of fracking, not the costs (Passed House 11/21) Highlighted in episode Automatically permits pipelines that are not permitted in under 120 days (Passed House 12/2, served as the vehicle for the 2014 budget, LAW 1/17/14) Highlighted in episode Taxpayers will pay for private space accidents starting at $500 million and up to $2.8 billion (Passed House 12/3, S. 1893 referred to Senate committee 12/20) Highlighted in episode TSA must publicly publish a plan for the security technology they intend to buy Private sector must be included and plan must identify "public private partnership" opportunities (Passed House 12/3, Senate 12/9, LAW 12/9) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 12/4) Highlighted in episode (Passed House 12/5) Highlighted in episode Claims must be available on a public, searchable website Limits lawsuits down the supply chain Lawsuit losers must pay expenses and fees of the winners (Passed House 10/28, Senate 11/19, LAW 12/26) Highlighted in episode A cyber-security section was added last minute by Jay Rockefeller Creates a "Conflict Records Research Center" and allows states, foreign governments, and “any source in the private sector” to give money to the Department of Defense. Allows contractors to make more than the President of the United States. Expands the drug war to Chad, Libya, Mali, & Niger.

CD062: The Farm Bill

9 februari 2014 | 62 min

On February 7, President Obama signed the Farm Bill into law, which will govern our food policy for the next five years. In the new law are cuts to food stamps, an expansion of an extremely generous crop insurance program, bailouts for livestock producers, a big favor for chemical companies, and much more. Music in This Episode: Intro and Exit Music: by , by by Farming in the United States We often hear that most United States farms are "family farms", which is true; in 2011, 96 percent of U.S. crop farms were family farms, and they accounted for 87 percent of the value of crop production. The term is misleading, however, because family farms can be sole proprietorships, partnerships or corporations. Using the term 'family farm' implies a small farm like the one Auntie Em owned in the Wizard of Oz. In reality, ; 86 percent of farms with at least 10,000 acres of cropland are family operations. The way these large farms qualify as 'family farms' but actually produce the products of giant corporations is through the use of contracts. The farms themselves are owned and operated by individuals, but their crops belong to and are sold by a corporation. For example, Dole Foods leases 14,000 acres in Arizona and California from landowners who purchased the land from Dole Foods. Most of that land is now farmed by independent growers, most of which are family operations, under contract arrangements with Dole. , larger operations are more likely to use contracts, which can reduce the price and marketing risks faced by farmers. Large farms now dominate crop production in the United States. From 1987-2007, consolidation lead to larger farms for every major crop except for cantaloupe and plums. Between 1950 and 1997, consolidation caused the number of farms in the U.S. to decline dramatically—f. concluded that this consolidation is due in part to the expansion of crop insurance in the United States. By reducing risk to farmers, crop insurance encourages farmers to invest more in labor-reducing equipment and to specialize in specific crops instead of diversifying crops and livestock as had been traditional in the past. Crop insurance also guarantees a certain amount of income to farmers which allows the large farms with only one crop to survive even if their product is devastated by drought, fire, or other national disaster. This guaranteed financial return has allowed larger farms to gobble up smaller farms, leading to the rapid consolidation of the last 60 years. Wealthy farmers' ability to buy vast amounts of land and huge equipment has increased production so much that now very few people are needed to do the actual work. In 1945, it took 14 labor hours to produce 100 bushels of corn on 2 acres of land; on less than half the amount of land. That increased productivity resulted from bigger, more powerful machines, commercial fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and other technologies. As a consequence of the substitution of equipment and chemicals for human labor, for a living today. The Farm Bill was signed into law on Friday, February 7, 2014. It will govern food policy in the United States for the next five years. Cuts to SNAP: Food Assistance for Needy Families The farm bill cuts $8 billion from SNAP (which is less than ); the cut from a typical poor family. The law kept the mean, unnecessary, and probably unenforceable provision that prevents food stamp recipients from recycling for cash the bottles and cans they bought with food stamps (Section 4001). Stores and restaurants that accept food stamps will be forced to pay for 100% of the electronic equipment and supplies needed to process food stamp cards while the law also prohibits manual vouchers (Section 4002). Murderers and sex offenders will not be eligible for food stamps (Section 4008). Government sponsored advertisements for the food stamp program will be prohibited (Section 4018). Direct Payments Direct payments - tax money given to food manufacturers for each acre they owned, regardless of production - were eliminated (Section 1101). Direct payments had cost The House version had kept direct payments to upland cotton growers until 2016; the law will not. The farm bill shifted the gifts to Agribusiness from direct payments to crop insurance, a program that will an increase of $7 billion, likely more. The increase in crop insurance cancels out all savings generated by eliminating direct payments, and then some. for crop insurance due to the 2012 drought. No person or "legal entity" can receive more than $125,000 per year, but (Section 1603). Individuals who make over $900,000 a year are ineligible for commodity and conservation program money, but payments (Section 1605). Food manufacturers who do not purchase insurance will be able to get payments equal to catastrophic insurance levels - also capped at $125,000 per year- if they back-pay premiums (Section 12305). The insurance program is managed by private insurance companies for a profit but claims will be paid with taxpayer money. Taxpayers reimburse private insurance companies for their costs (Section 11021). Private insurers have pocketed surplus premiums in all but two years since 1993; in that time, private while the taxpayers have absorbed $70 million in losses. Any savings generated by renegotiating terms with the private insurance companies (Section 11012). Federal subsidies for premiums totaled $7.15 billion in 2012, and Federal support for insurance company expenses were $1.38 billion (). "But we are also telling private crop insurance companies, we are going to guarantee you a 14 percent profit margin. We are going to pay your entire administrative and operating expenses. And, by the way, you are going to bear very little risk in offering these policies. The American taxpayer will still bear that risk." - , We will also pay the food manufacturers' premiums. Taxpayers will pay 65% of insurance premiums in some cases (Section 11003). For beginning farmers and ranchers, we will pay 75% of their premiums (Section 11016). For the dairy program, the lowest level of coverage requires no premium payments (Section 1407). Organic farmers will be eligible for insurance no later than 2015 (Section 11023). "In case folks do not know, the fact of the matter is that Americans subsidize crop insurance. We pick up over 60 percent of the cost of the premiums on crop insurance. We pay 100 percent of the administrative costs in terms of crop insurance. We have , and we can't find out who they are." -), Multiple insurance options - price loss coverage and agriculture risk coverage- are available only to food manufacturers with over 10 acres (Sections 1115-1117). Price loss coverage: Food manufacturers are paid with tax money when the real price of their crops is less than expected. Agriculture risk coverage: Food manufacturers are paid with tax money when they make less in revenue than they expected; it essentially . The Numbers Are Rigged Methods used to calculate average crops for the purpose of insurance payouts inflate the average crop size, which in turn will trigger larger taxpayer-funded insurance payouts. In determining the expected crop, any year in the previous five - which is used to determine the average- when the crop yield is less than 70% of the historical yield, that year will count as 70% (Section 1117). Food manufacturers can exclude years during which their yield was 50% below the average of the previous ten years (Section 11009). For the dairy program, the production history for the milk manufacturers' will be their highest production rate in the years 2011, 2012, or 2013 instead of an average (Section 1405). Bailouts for Food Manufacturers Unlimited tax money will be used to pay individuals and corporations for livestock losses caused by attacks by wolves and other Federally protected predator species, disease, and natural disasters such as drought, flood, blizzards, wildfires, and other climate-related disasters (Section 1501). We will pay the person or corporation 75% of the value of the dead animals. We will pay 60% of a livestock producers' feed costs in the case of drought, 80% if they disposed of livestock because of drought in one or both of the previous years. Drought payments will be multiplied by the severity of drought. D3 level drought will give the livestock producer three times the standard monthly payment, D4 level drought will give the livestock producer four times the standard monthly payment, and D4 level drought that lasts longer than four weeks will pay out five times the standard monthly payment. Assistance is capped at $125,000 per person or "legal entity" per year. We will also pay tree manufacturers for 65% of their replanting costs if more than 15% of their trees were destroyed due to a natural disaster, capped at $125,000 per year for no more than 500 acres. Research We will pay for research into improving the "digestibility, nutritional value, and efficiency of the use of corn, soybean meal, cereal grains, and grain byproducts for the poultry and food animal production industries" (Section 7209). ; the dietary change makes them unhealthier food for humans but changes their growth time from five years to 14 months, leading to faster profits for industry. Corn production in 2010 consumed 9 million tons of fertilizer & led to 42 million tons of CO2 greenhouse gas emission. The budget signed two weeks ago caused by livestock production. Due to their unhealthy diets, 80% of antibiotics in the United States are given to U.S. farm animals, . The "Red Meat Safety Research Center" is repealed in this law (Section 7215). When publishing a final rule for "Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption", the Secretary of Health and Human Services must evaluate the economic impact on industry and develop a plan to respond to business concerns (Section 12311). Genetically Modified Food Plants that secrete poison - "" - can be imported into the United States without the knowledge of the government as long as is registered in the United States or has received an experimental use permit (Section 10008). This section was slipped into the final version of the bill. Labeling Country of origin labeling was not prevented by this law; the law orders a study on the economic impact of the new regulations (Section 12104). Certified organic farm will have to keep records for five years detailing the substances they use in their fields, the name and address of the person who applied it, and the date, rate, and method of application for each substance (Section 10005). Penalties for mis-labeling a product will be capped at $10,000. Protection for Chemical Companies The EPA will be from studies assessing tolerances to pesticides (Section 10015). In 2011, the as a pesticide because the combination of pesticides on food when added to the exposure we get from drinking water and toothpaste exceed the legal limit. If they don't assess the tolerance level anymore, then fluoride can still be considered "safe" to use as a pesticide. Sulfuryl flouride is a product of Dow Chemical, which spent in 2013. Marketing We will pay $25 million to "address the critical needs to the pulse crop industry" with an information campaign designed to get us to buy more dry beans, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas (Section 7209). We will also pay for research into "improving pulse crop productivity" using plant breeding, genetics, and genomics." We will pay $20 million per year to promote and expand production of maple syrup (Section 12306). Conservation Programs Overall, the law will c from conservation over the next ten years. Food manufacturers will have to comply with conservation rules in order to get taxpayers to pay their insurance premiums (Section 2611). Payment in Peanuts Peanut producers are able to get loans from the Federal government by putting up physical peanuts for collateral. When they repay the loan, they are supposed to pay us back for the storage and handling; however, if the loan can not be re-paid, the taxpayer is on the hook for the storage, handling, and will be the proud owner of a warehouse(s) full of peanuts (Section 1201). Elimination of Mineral Rights The following section of current law, says if a landowner's mineral rights aren't included in the appraisal for a loan, the mineral rights can't be considered collateral. This section is eliminated which may mean that if a landowner's mineral rights are not included in the appraisal for a loan, those mineral rights CAN be seized as collateral on the loan (Section 5004). With respect to a farm ownership loan made after December 23, 1985, unless appraised values of the rights to oil, gas, or other minerals are specifically included as part of the appraised value of collateral securing the loan, the rights to oil, gas, or other minerals located under the property shall not be considered part of the collateral securing the loan. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the inclusion of, as part of the collateral securing the loan, any payment or other compensation the borrower may receive for damages to the surface of the collateral real estate resulting from the exploration for or recovery of minerals. Marijuana Universities and States may grow hemp as part of a pilot program to research the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp (Section 7606). Medical marijuana cannot be treated as a medical expense for a medical expense deduction (Section 4005). Animal Fighting It will now be illegal to attend an animal fight; doing so will be punishable by a fine and/or up to one year in prison. Deleted A provision in previous versions would have required members of Congress, their immediate families, and the President's Cabinet to report any payouts they receive from crop insurance; it

CD061: State of the Budget

1 februari 2014 | 69 min

This episode is a mash-up of the State of the Union and the 2014 budget. We compare the impression President Obama gave us about what to expect for this upcoming year with the reality of what was funded in the last-minute and little-examined budget which he signed into law just two weeks before the speech. Information Presented in this Episode The following quotes are from the . Let's compare them to what was in the budget which he recently signed into law: The 2014 Budget () "Last month, thanks to the work of Democrats and Republicans, Congress finally produced a budget that undoes some of last year's severe cuts to priorities like education. Nobody got every-thing they wanted, and we can still do more to invest in this country's future while bringing down our deficit in a balanced way, but the budget com-promise should leave us freer to focus on creating new jobs, not creating new crises." - President Obama The budget should have been done by September 30, 2013. This new law puts all 12 appropriations bills into one big monster law. The bill was put on the and was passed on January 15. The budget is The budget was attached as an amendment to H.R. 3547, the bill extending the insurance program for commercial space flight which was highlighted in The insurance program was originally extended for a year; the budget bill extended it until 2017.) Fossil Fuels "Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The all-of- the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. One of the reasons why is natural gas. If extracted safely, it is the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. Businesses plan to in-vest almost $100 billion in new factories that use natural gas. I will cut red tape to help States get those factories built and put folks to work, and this Congress can help by putting people to work building fueling stations that shift more cars and trucks from foreign oil to American natural gas." - President Obama (Division G - Section 108) The Interior Secretary will set up Internet program for oil and gas leasing. Lip Service to Fracking Water Poisoning "Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and job growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, and our communities." () Prohibits more than $6 million for a joint research effort by the EPA and USGS into hydraulic fracturing that aims "to address the health, safety, and environmental risks of shale gas extraction." Solar "It is not just oil and natural gas pro-duction that's booming. We are becom-ing a global leader in solar, too. Every 4 minutes, another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job cannot be outsourced. Let's con-tinue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don't need it so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do." - President Obama Solar will receive $257 million in 2014. () Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy = $1.7 billion, about half of what was requested (Wind & Solar = 20% of budget at $345 million) Fossil Fuel Research and Development will get $562 million, $142 million more than requested Only time the word 'solar' appears in the budget, the law prohibits the Department of Interior from processing a grant or lease for a (Division G - Section 116) Money is given to the Air Force to upgrade the heating at and forces the little town to use United States coal as the power source, even though . Climate Change - Flood Preparation [caption id="" align="alignright" width="340"] FEMA/Bill Brown[/caption] "Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past 8 years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. But we have to act with more urgency because a changing climate is already harming Western communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with floods." - President Obama Authorizes $1.6 billion for a maximum of 4 new Army Corps of Engineers construction projects. One has to be for environmental restoration, the other three are for navigation OR flood and storm damage reduction, which means that it is possible that none of these projects will be for storm damage reduction. () Authorizes $28 million for preparation for floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. (Division D) and $154 million for flood plain mapping and management. () Disaster Relief Fund will receive $6.2 billion. () Reduces money available for weatherization programs that were part of the stimulus bill and also changes eligibility to make it harder to get; the law prohibits the Department of Energy from paying employees who enforce the changes made by the stimulus. () Prohibits enforcement of energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. () Prohibits money to be used to pay the salary of the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change () New Carbon Standards "That's why I directed my administration to work with States, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air." -President Obama No money can go towards a regulation for, among other things, carbon dioxide and methane caused by livestock production.() No money can go towards a rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions of manure management systems. ( No money can go towards implementing regulations on high-carbon intensity projects of the Export-Import bank that would prohibit any coal-fired or "other power-generation project" in USAID (poor, indebted countries) that would "provide affordable electricity" or increase US exports or jobs. Immigration "Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement and fix our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats in the Sen-ate have acted. I know that Members of both parties in the House want to do the same." - President Obama Republicans discussed immigration on their , specifically a border fence, but didn't mention immigration in their letter to President Obama. Detention: Must have at least 34,000 detention beds () Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated () has 83 factories, which pay their prisoner slaves between $0.23 and $1.15 per hour, and provide services, including . () No money can be spent on a public advocate in Immigration & Customs Enforcement. () Prohibits a border crossing fee. Gun Control "Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘‘we are not afraid,'' and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, in our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook." - President Obama ) No money may be used to advocate or promote gun control. Afghanistan "With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America's longest war will finally be over. - President Obama None of the money can be used to "establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Afghanistan" () No money for new construction projects () "After 2014, we will support a unified Afghanistan as it takes responsibility for its own future. If the Afghan Government signs a security agreement that we have negotiated, a small force of Americans could remain in Afghanistan with NATO allies to carry out two narrow missions: training and assisting Afghan forces, and counter-terrorism operations to pursue any remnants of al Qaeda. For while our relationship with Afghanistan will change, one thing will not: our resolve that terrorists do not launch attacks against our country." - President Obama Iraq "When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq." - President Obama None of the money can be used to "establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of any oil resource of Iraq" () $209 million to support "United States government transition activities" () which includes security assistance, facilities renovation and construction, training of Iraqi troops and counter-terrorism personnel. Orders a report from DoD and the Secretary of State for their plan to transfer "training activities that they determine are needed after the end of fiscal year 2014 to existing or new contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services" $250 million for "democracy programs" "Building Democracy" "From Tunisia to Burma, we are sup-porting those who are willing to do the hard work of building democracy." - President Obama to "target citizens of the US for exercising any right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." ) No money can be used by the IRS to "target groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs." No money can be used to require any company with a government contract or requesting a government contract to disclose political contributions to candidates or committees (political action committees) or payments made towards political advertising. () Syria "In Syria, we'll support the opposition that rejects the agenda of terrorist networks." - President Obama "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution." which says the President needs to declare war within 60 days AFTER he starts one. He doesn't have to do this at all if he has an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Funds for Iraq can be used in Syria "to support international efforts to promote regional security"( Funds for the State Department can be used to "establish governance in Syria that is representative, inclusive and accountable", and to "counter extremist ideologies" Drones "America must move off a permanent war footing. That's why I have imposed prudent limits on the use of drones, for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence." - President Obama Guantanamo Bay "And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay." -President Obama Can't use money to transfer anyone into the United States from Guantanamo Bay, but can upgrade and repair Guantanamo Bay Israel-Palestine "As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in the difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel—a Jewish State that knows America will always be at their side." - President Obama $3.1 billion for Israel's military. Prohibits money for Palestine, unless they become a state. ) 10th Deployment [caption id="" align="alignright" width="302"] U.S. Army Ranger Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg at the 2014 State of the Union Address[/caption] "I first met Cory Remsburg, a proud Army Ranger, at Omaha Beach on the 65th anniversary of D-day. Along with some of his fellow Rangers, he walked me through the program. He was a strong, impressive young man with an easy manner. He was sharp as a tack. We joked around and took pictures, and I told him to stay in touch. A few months later, on his 10th deployment, Cory was nearly killed by a massive roadside bomb in Afghanistan. His comrades found him in a canal, face down, under water, shrapnel in his brain." - President Obama The budget cancels the pension cut from for people who are disabled, like Cory. The cut remains for anyone lucky enough to escape the military uninjured. The cuts start December 1, 2015. Procurement Over $92 is going toward procurement - the buying of stuff for the military. Every single category allowed our money to pay for expansion of private plants, including the land, to pay for equipment, appliances, and tools in those private plants and pay the layaway payments for contractor-owned equipment. Air Force must spend the money it's given for the RQ-4B Global Hawk drones, the (). RQ-4 Global Hawks drones are manufactured by Northrup Grumman; Northrup Grumman manufacturers the drones in Buck McKeon's district; Buck McKeon is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; the House Armed Services Committee is in charge of Defense money. : Will Work Around Congress "What I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I am eager to work with all of you; but America does not stand still, and neither will I, so wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that is what I am going to do." - President Obama Minimum Wage "Today, the Federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. TOM HARKIN and GEORGE MILLER have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It is easy to remember— 10, 10. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It does not involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say ‘‘yes.'' Give America a raise. Give them a raise." - President Obama Retirement "That is why tomorrow, I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It is a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg. MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in."- President Obama NSA Spying "That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveil-lance programs, because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated." -President Obama "Information pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through " (. was created during the Reagan administration and updated several times, notably by George W. Bush when his administration started his program. One way they appear to be authorizing and funding NSA spying: Money "shall be available for the inter-agency funding of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities, as provided by Executive Order 13618" ). Executive Order 13618 orders the Defense Secretary to "provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended." "No money can be used by any Federal Agency to collect "personally identifiable information" relating to our access or use of any website. There are exceptions which include voluntary submissions of personally identifiable information, actions taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law, and actions taken to protect the rights or property of the Internet provider. ( TPP "Over the past 5 years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other, and when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partner-ships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs." - President Obama Our tax money will be allowed to be used to advertise for "United States" corporations overseas. Prohibits the trade representative from seeking "the removal by any foreign country of or tobacco products" ( Prohibits the use of text from the , , & which granted strict patent rights to industry. The Morocco FTA forced both countries to allow patents on plants, animals, and surgical procedures and including that in the TPP is now illegal. ( Not Mentioned By President Obama But In The Budget Torture "None of the funds made available in this Act shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture by any official or contract employee of the United States Government." ( Food Safety and Inspection Service Will get $1 billion for 148 full time inspectors... for the entire country. Abortion Federal money can't pay for abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger or if she was the victim of rape and/or incest. This includes prisoners. Contraceptives Government health care that provides for prescription drugs must include birth control Propaganda Prohibits funding for propaganda inside the United States that isn't already authorized by Congress Marijuana No money can be used to "enact or carry out and law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of… any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative" ( No money can be used to promote the legalization of any drug, except when there is "significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug" Public Health No money can go towards sterile needles for junkies. ( Music In This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on )

CD060: Fast Track for TPP

11 januari 2014 | 55 min

This week, a bill was introduced in both the House and the Senate that would hand Congress' power to negotiate trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, over to the President. We also look at the budget agreement to get an idea of what Congress is putting into their last-minute must-sign-by-next-week budget. Finally, thoughts on the golf swing. Information Presented in This Episode Fast Track for Trade Agreements On Thursday, January 9, , retiring Democrat in the Senate, and and , two shameless Republicans in the House, introduced a bill that would hand their power to negotiate and enter into trade agreements to the President. This bill would provide the President with so-called "" authority to enter into both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a trade deal with the European Union. Fast track authority makes it much, much easier for these controversial deals to become law. The bill starts off with , which lists a whole bunch of wonderful sounding goals - "objectives"- for the United States' trade agreements with other nations. Some of these lofty goals include opening up new markets, protecting the environment, protecting United States' family farms, encouraging foreign investment in the United States, protection of intellectual property rights, transparency, fair labor practices, and anti-corruption. Too bad none of these things are actually enforceable. The reason these goals are unenforceable is that regardless of whether any of these "objectives" are actually met by the trade agreement, authorizes the President of the United States, and only the President of the United States, to enter into trade agreements with foreign countries on or before July 1, 2018. There's some wiggle room with that date. The expiration date will be automatically extended until July 1, 2021 if the President asks for the extension as long as "neither House of Congress adopts an extension disapproval resolution" before July 1, 2018. If Congress does nothing; the extension is automatically approved. And doing nothing is one area where Congress performs extremely well. In order to enter into a trade agreement, the President merely has to inform Congress of his intentions to do so. He also has to let them pretend to have a say in "consultation" meetings, but there are no consequences if the majority of Congressional representatives disagree with the substance of the trade agreement, even if they can prove that the trade agreement does not meet the "objectives" listed in the beginning of the bill. In fact, Congress might not know the substance of the trade agreement because doesn't require the President to submit the final text to Congress until after he has entered into the agreement. From there, Congress will only be permitted to vote on whether or not to implement the President's trade agreement; no amendments to the agreement will be allowed. Congress did insert some language into the bill that is supposed to make us feel better about all this. First, says that Congress must be given the text of the trade agreement before the "implementing bill" comes up for a vote. What it doesn't say is how much time they'll get to read it. In theory, the President could give them the text of the trade agreement an hour before the vote and he will have fulfilled his obligations. is the only source of real hope in the bill. It essentially says that trade agreement provisions that are different from or that change United States laws are not enforceable. It also says that any findings or recommendations of "dispute settlement panels" will have "no binding effect" on the law of the United States. The Budget Agreement On December 12th, 2013, the House of Representatives passed the that was crafted by Democratic Senator and Republican Representative . The budget agreement is the general rules they will follow while crafting the omnibus budget for 2014 and 2015. The omnibus budget is all twelve appropriations bills wrapped up into one monster bill, with all kinds of non-related gifts to campaign contributors attached to the must-sign legislation. . It must be signed into law next week to avoid another government shut down. One creepy provision () in the budget agreement will restrict our access to the for three years. The Death Master File lists the name, social security number, birthday, and date of death of everyone who dies in the United States. Currently the list is updated weekly and available both for a fee and for free on various websites. The budget agreement will prevent us from getting this information for three years after a person dies. Fees are steep for those who release this currently-public information; you will be charged $1,000 for each disclosure, capped at $250,000 a year if the disclosure is accidental. If the disclosure is on purpose, there is no cap. The provision also exempts the Death Master File from the Freedom of Information Act, effective immediately. Another infuriating provision () approves the to open up oil and gas exploration in the center of the Gulf of Mexico, an area known as the Western Gap. As outlined in detail in , the majority of companies that have already claimed leases on the American side are not American companies, yet we are risking our coastlines for them anyway. A bill to approve this deal passed the House of Representatives earlier this year but the Senate did not approve it, so friends of the oil industry slipped it into the budget agreement. Hardly anyone has noticed. Some other provisions: : Lowers fee rates on student loan defaults to 16% from 18.5% : Changes TSA fees from $2.50 per plane, one-way, capped at $5 to a flat $5.60 each way, regardless of number of planes boarded. : Changes the compensation formula for Federal contractors and lowers the cap to $487,000/yr. For the rest of the provisions, we will have to wait for the text of the actual budget to see the details. It will likely already be law by the time we get a chance to read it. Music In This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by (found on )

CD059: NDAA 2014

4 januari 2014 | 34 min

Congress and President Obama worked together to fast-track a new & unexamined NDAA into law. The new law essentially makes NSA data collection legal, cuts military pensions, and spends an enormous amount of money making sure the United States is able to destroy the entire world at a moment's notice. Links to Information in This Episode *The title has been changed to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 since it was signed into law. Previously, "To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor" The Cyber-security bill (Sections 932- 942) was Section 1071 creates the "Conflicts Records Research Center" and allows states, foreign governments, and "any source in the private sector" to give money to the Department of Defense. Section 143 prohibits the military from retiring the RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk drones, which . Section 234 gives $15 million taxpayer dollars to "United States" companies so they can set up assembly lines for the Iron Dome missile defense system in Israel. No requirement for profit-sharing with the taxpayers was included. Section 242 says the United Stats shouldn't buy products that don't work unless the purchase is "to mainatin a warm line for the industrial base". Section 811 allows private contractors specializing in science, technology, engineering, math, medical, and cyber-security to be paid up to $625,000/year. . Section 813 makes it easier for the Department of Defense to hide their reasons for contracting with suspended or disbarred companies. Section 1011 extends for another year. Section 1013 expands the drug war to Chad, Libya, Mali, and Niger. Section 1033-1039 prevent prisoners from Guantanamo Bay prison from being transferred to prisons in the United States, but allows them to be transferred to their home countries if certain conditions are met. Section 1043 orders a report from the President regarding how he creates his kill lists. Section 1056 only allows the military to "prepare" to comply with the not to actually comply with the New Start Treaty. Section 1062 says that upgrading nuclear bombers "must remain a high budget priority." Sections 1701-1753 create new rules governing sexual assault in the military. The note that the "Conference Report" numbers (H.R. 3304 is the conference report) are blank. The NDAA was , which means no amendments were allowed. H.R. 1960: The National Defense Authorization Act version that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year; highlighted the House's original version of the 2014 NDAA. - which has been signed into law - cuts the cost of living adjustments to pensions for military veteran's by 1% per year. Defense Secretary . Music in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Somebody's Watching Us by (found on )

CD058: Space Travel, TSA, Wall Street, & Patents

21 december 2013 | 36 min

During the first week of December, the House of Representatives passed bills to extend an insurance program that provides taxpayer bailouts to private space exploration companies, made changes to TSA policies, tried (again) to deregulate Wall Street gamblers, and tried to shut down patent trolls. Executive Producer: Brandon K. Lewis Information Presented in this Episode Extends an existing government insurance program for private companies that launch vehicles into space through 2014. The program has three tiers: The private companies buy insurance from a private insurance company for the "maximum probably loss" that would occur if there were an accident; the insurance is capped at $500 million. The "maximum probable loss" is determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Government Accountability Office says that . If the "maximum probably loss" is not actually the maximum loss, taxpayers will pay up to $2.8 billion (in 2013 dollars -this number increases with inflation) for damage caused by the private companies' accident. Any amount over the insurance payment plus the taxpayers' $2.8 billion must be paid by the private company who caused the accident. The insurance program extension has been requested by the private companies who stand to profit from launching vehicles into space. [caption id="attachment_1162" align="aligncenter" width="261"] Rep. Lamar Smith (TX), author of H.R. 3547[/caption] Rep. Lamar Smith (TX), author of H.R. 3547, has taken money for the 2014 election from companies requesting the insurance program. [caption id="attachment_1163" align="aligncenter" width="773"] Source: OpenSecrets.org on December 20, 2013[/caption] Passed the House of Representatives on December 2, 2013 [caption id="attachment_1165" align="aligncenter" width="641"] Source: Govtrack.us[/caption] Would divert approximately $500,000 per year in abandoned change from airports from TSA airport security, where it currently goes, to building areas of "rest and recuperation" for military families at airports. [caption id="attachment_1166" align="aligncenter" width="273"] Rep. Cedric Richmond (VA), December 3, 2013 Congressional Record[/caption] Passed the House of Representatives without a recorded vote on December 3, 2013. TSA must develop and publicly publish a plan for what security technology they plan to buy. Bill is necessary because the TSA is Former Department of Homeland Security officials, including Michael Chertoff, since leaving their government jobs. The plan must identify "opportunities for public-private partnerships". Private sector suggestions must be included in the plan. The Obama administration must report "subcontracting goals" and why they haven't been met (if applicable). Passed the House of Representatives unanimously on December 3, 2013. Was signed into law on December 9, 2013. It is illegal to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive a firearm not detectable by metal detectors." by Carrie Johnson, NPR, November 14, 2013. Real name: "Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act" (hello, Orwell). Exempts private equity fund advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Passed largely along Party lines, getting almost unanimous Republican support. Unsurprisingly, the bill was supported by Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut, [caption id="attachment_1169" align="aligncenter" width="647"] Rep. Jim Himes (CT), OpenSecrets.org as of 12/20/2013[/caption] Just a few weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 992, an even more offensive bill that would allow United States' government - the type of behavior that crashed the global economy. Requires more details when filing a lawsuit for patent infringement. Losers of lawsuits must pay expenses and fees of the winners, but the court can intervene. Limits discovery requests; they must be specific. Patent claims must be available on a searchable, public website. Limits lawsuits down the supply chain (for example, p and claiming they own the technology The bill passed on December 5, 2013 with 91 Representatives voting against it because they say the bill was rushed and not examined closely enough for unintended consequences. Representatives Quoted in This Episode (In Order of Appearance) Music & Other Audio in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on )

CD055: Three Bills for Fossil Fuels

28 november 2013 | 50 min

Before going home for Thanksgiving, the House passed three bills designed to fast-track permits for oil and natural gas drilling. This episode highlights the Congressmen who pushed these bills through the House. Bill Summaries passed the House of Representatives 228-192 on Wednesday, November 20, 2013. H.R. 1965 will not become law; TITLE I, Subtitle A: Speeds Up Oil and Gas Permitting ("Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act of 2013") Introduced by The government will have 30 days to decide on a drilling permit: If the government does not decide whether or not to issue a drilling permit in 60 days, the permit is automatically approved: It will cost $5,000 to challenge a drilling permit in court: Lawsuits that challenge a drilling permit must be filed within 90 days: If a citizen wins a lawsuit challenging a drilling permit, they cannot be reimbursed for their attorney's fees and court costs: American taxpayers will pay $50 million to map our oil and gas resources for the fossil fuel companies: TITLE I, Subtitle B: Hand Our Land to Fossil Fuel Companies ("Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 2013") Introduced by Every year, we must lease at least 25% of our available land; these leases cannot be challenged in court: Once we lease the land to the energy companies, we can't change our minds: Protests against lease sales that are not settled in 60 days are automatically denied: The Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum 2010-117 - a process that examines environmental concerns and involves the public in oil and gas leasing decisions - will have "no force or effect". TITLE I, Subtitle C: Bring Back Bush Administration Regulations for Oil Shale Development ("Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or the "") Introduced by Oil Shale is a technology - that still doesn't work - which involves melting rocks to access the oil inside of them: Regulations for oil shale will return to the regulations issued by the George W. Bush administration: The Bush administration regulations - would would come back - require fewer environmental studies and allows oil companies decide which new regulations to obey: We would have to lease at least 125,000 additional acres to the oil companies for oil shale experimentation: TITLE III: "The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act" Introduced by The national policy of the United States will be to drill, baby, drill in Alaska; we must give the oil companies at least 10 leases by 2023: We will throw out a completed Environmental Impact Statement and replace it with one designed to "promote efficient and maximum development of oil and natural gas resources" of the Alaska Petroleum Reserve: TITLE V: Prevent Native American Anti-Drilling Lawsuits ("Native American Energy Act") Introduced by Appraisals that determine the market value of Native American land will be automatically approved after 60 days: Environmental reviews of projects on Native American lands will not be available to the public; only Native Americans and local residents can get access: Native Americans can not file a lawsuit against a drilling lease after 60 days; they cannot file lawsuits locally, only in Washington D.C.: If Native Americans win a lawsuit against the United State government challenging a drilling decision, they cannot be paid for their court costs: If Native Americans lose a lawsuit against a drilling lease, they must pay the oil companies' court costs: Current law says the Secretary of the Interior needs to approve drilling projects on Navajo Nation land; Section 5008 reverses the law and extends the length of drilling leases by making the following edits: (e) Leases of restricted lands for the Navajo Nation (1) Any leases by the Navajo Nation for purposes authorized under subsection (a) of this section, and any amendments thereto, except a lease for including leases for the exploration, development, or extraction of any mineral resources, shall not require the approval of the Secretary if the lease is executed under the tribal regulations approved by the Secretary under this subsection and the term of the lease does not exceed - (A) in the case of a business or agricultural lease, 25 99 years, except that any such lease may include an option to renew for up to two additional terms, each of which may not exceed 25 years;... Federal regulations governing fracking will not automatically apply to Native American land: passed the House of Representatives 235-187 on Wednesday, November 20, 2013. H.R. 2728 will not become law, TITLE I: Only States Can Regulate Fracking Introduced by If a State has any regulations in place, the Federal government cannot enforce any additional regulations: The Federal government can't enforce fracking regulations on land held in trust for Indians: The government would create a rigged study that examines only the benefits of fracking (added by amendment): TITLE II: "EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act" Introduced by Adds extra work to Environmental Protection Agency studies of fracking chemicals in drinking water by requiring the studies to be peer reviewed and held to a higher standard: EPA studies on fracking chemicals in drinking water need to point out their own weaknesses: Introduced by passed the House of Representatives 252-165 on Thursday, November 21, 2013. H.R. 1900 will not become law; Permits for natural gas pipelines must be decided in under 1 year: Agencies responsible for determining if a natural gas pipeline is in the public interest will have 90 days to decide after the environmental review is complete: If the agency does not decide within 90 days, the permit will be automatically issued on the 120th day: Representatives Discussed in This Episode Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5) He voted re-opening the government and raising the debt ceiling. Residents of the Colorado 5th are fighting fracking in their city. by Kirk Johnson, New York Times, October 24, 2011. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming) Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-6) interview with The Denver Post. , CBS Denver, June 5, 2012. Rep. Doc Hastings (WA-4) Rep. Don Young (Alaska) by John R. Wilke, Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2007. Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17) by Dave Michaels, The Dallas Morning News, October 9, 2010. Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-21) was introduced by Lamar Smith He's marijuana legalization. Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-4) by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, March 20, 2011. by Tom Hamburger & others, The Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2011. Representatives Quoted in This Episode Music Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Music by David Holmes and Andrew Bean Vocals and Lyrics by David Holmes and Niel Bekker Animation by Adam Sakellarides and Lisa Rucker Additional Information , Democracy Now!, November 22, 2013. , Wikipedia H.R. 1965 would bring in $325 million over 10 years in revenue. San Bruno Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion, September 10, 2010.

CD054: Hidden Data Act

23 november 2013 | 34 min

A bill marketed as for "transparency" appears to keep information secret from the public and gut an oversight board. Taxpayers treat a group of Representatives to an expensive Summer getaway. Cocaine. HR 2061: passed the House of Representatives 388-1 on Monday, November 12, 2013. Section 3: The following information would be published on the : A "pilot program" will "consolidate reports" that agencies and companies who receive Federal money must turn in: The agencies and companies allowed into the pilot program must be worth at least $1 billion total; there's no limit to the number of participants. The Recovery Board would start investigating the Inspectors General: Section 5: Expands the amount of information that can be kept secret: Section 3 of the says: Section 5 of the DATA Act changes it to say: The "information protected" under the which the DATA Act would keep secret from the public is: Some information from the that the DATA Act would keep secret from the public is: The information from the that the DATA Act would keep secret from the public is: The Recovery Board investigates companies that are given government money - "recipients". [caption id="attachment_1065" align="aligncenter" width="336"] Quote by Rep. Darrell Issa, House Floor, November 18, 2013.[/caption] The DATA Act extends the Recovery Board but lets its functions and website expire six weeks from now: which passed the House in May 2013- is attached to the end of the DATA Act. Limits spending on conferences to $500,000. Extraordinarily detailed reports required for conferences over $10,000. Cuts agencies' travel budget by at least 30%. Congressional Travel Expenses Five Representatives and two staffers took a $179,938 six-day all expense paid-by-taxpayers trip to Singapore and Australia in Summer 2013. Representatives Discussed in This Episode was the only Representative to vote against the DATA Act. As a scientist, I know firsthand how important scientific conferences and meetings are. I opposed H.R. 2061, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, because it would cut by 30 percent the amount of travel federal employees could undertake for conferences, meetings, and other crucial events. - Rep. Rush Holt is on a leave of absence due to his . [caption id="attachment_1049" align="alignright" width="300"] Rep. Darrell Issa represents California's 49th district[/caption] Rep. Darrell Issa of California was the of the DATA Act. Darrell Issa is the in 2013. He has at least $430 million; he made $135 million in 2012 on Wall Street. Darrell Issa . Representatives Quoted in this Episode Additional Information Sunlight Foundation blog of HR 2061 Music Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) by ) by Homework Watch

CD052: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

9 november 2013 | 49 min

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secret international treaty designed to give corporations power over governments; it is labeled as a "free trade agreement". The TPP will likely allow corporate control of the Internet, endanger food safety, increase medicine costs, remove environmental laws, prohibit financial regulations, and almost certainly would force the United States to give tax money to private corporations if our democracy creates laws that interfere with corporate profits. The Obama administration aims to have it signed into law by the end of 2013. *, released by Wikileaks on November 13, 2013. Sources of Clips Presented in This Episode YouTube Video: by , episode #186 of the series, November 14, 2012. Lee Camp is an angry comedian who has blessed the world with his 5 minute Moment of Clarity videos, which tackle all the horrible problems of the world with justified anger, passion, and lots of laughs. Check him out. The link above his to his episode on the Trans Pacific Partnership. YouTube Video: " by Thom Hartmann, , July 16, 2012. Provides the history of and interest in trade agreements. Examples of American laws being circumvented with trade agreements, including the creation of the and the . YouTube Video: "" by Thom Hartmann, , July 16, 2012. Details from the of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What is the difference between a treaty and an agreement? A treaty must be agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate; an agreement only needs a simple majority. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will create tribunals that will allow corporations to sue governments if the governments enact laws that interfere with corporate profits. Video with transcript: "" by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, Democracy Now!, October 4, 2013. Interview with director of Public Citizen's . Details from the of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What is ""? Basically, fast tracking the TPP would involve Congress handing their power to approve treaties to the Executive Branch and would essentially eliminate any public role in trade negotiations. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="175"] Michael Froman, U.S. Trade Representative, sounds like Dick Cheney, dead inside[/caption] Video with transcript: "" by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, Democracy Now!, June 6, 2013. Details on the tribunal system that will allow corporations to sue governments for lost profits. Sound clip of , the United States Trade Representative who is negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership on behalf of the United States. Video with transcript: " by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, Democracy Now!, June 14, 2012. Interview with director of Public Citizen's . An agreement was made to publish the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership four years after completion. Sound clip of a corporate tool giving former U.S. Trade Representative a fake award for pushing the TPP, which the corporate tool says will provide companies with expanded profits despite what the citizens think. Video with transcript: "" by Kerry Brewster, , October 10, 2013. Australian news segment highlighting the Trans-Pacific Partnerships dangers to Australian citizens. Canada is being sued for their fracking moratorium. TPP would extend the length of pharmaceutical patents, thereby delaying cheaper generics. Music In this Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) YouTube Video: "" by , May 7, 2012. YouTube Video: " by Jeremy Malcolm, September 30, 2013. Links to Additional Information About the Trans Pacific Partnership PDF: Simply the best resource available for finding information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. , Office of the United States Trade Representative website. by The Editorial Board of the New York Times, November 5, 2013. An endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership YouTube video: "" by the US State Department, November 17, 2012. Hillary Clinton gives a speech to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. by Jeff Zeleny, New York Times, April 3, 2009 , now the United States Trade Representative, used to work at Citigroup and was paid at least $7.4 million. How to Contact Your Representatives : 202-456-1111

CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

13 oktober 2013 | 73 min

For this episode, I read the entire The following is a resource for finding information within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My goal was to highlight the portions of the bill that will most directly affect our lives and put them into plain, understandable English. I'd also like for you to be able to find the text that makes these rules within the bill. The easiest way to search within a bill is by section number. You'll have to read a bit to find exactly what you're looking for, but this outline will tell you which section you can find the different provisions in. Anything "in quotes" is exact text from the bill. There are two versions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law ) you can read. . (the margins and the font are bigger). If you are going to attempt to read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you must know that Title X amends the first nine titles and amended the whole bill. This means that the law is often not what the text says. . This document was provided to the United States Senate for clarification. Subtitle A: "Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans" Section 1001: Rules on health insurance minimums that became effective immediately Insurance company can't , unless you committed fraud Health insurance plans have to provide - at no extra charge: All of the preventatives services on Immunizations Preventative care screenings for kids Kids can stay on their parent's insurance plans until their 26th birthday Insurance companies must cover at least 60% of medical payments The health insurance companies need to provide customers with a , which can only be 4 pages long with a minimum of 12-pt font and must include limitations, co-payments, deductibles, and percentage of medical costs covered by the insurance company. If they fail to provide the summary, the health insurer has to pay $1,000 for each customer who didn't receive it Employers are not allowed to only offer coverage to their high-paid employees Section 1001 as changed by amendment (See Section 10101): on the value of benefits for any customer They can place limits on things that are not essential health benefits must be ignored: Prevention programs can not collect information related to the presence of guns or ammunition in someone's home Premium rates can not be affected by the presence of a gun in someone's home Health insurance companies covering large groups must spend 85% of your premiums on you, or they have to issue a rebate check. Health insurance companies covering people in the individual market or small groups through exchanges have to spend 80% of your premiums on you or issue a rebate check. Hospitals must publish a list of standard charges for their services. Health insurance companies have to let you go to any primary care doctor that you choose and who can accept you The insurance company must have an appeals process for customers and must continue coverage while claims are in appeals If you get treatment in an out-of-network emergency room, your health insurance has to pay for those services. Health insurance companies can't require prior approval for emergency services. Health insurance companies can not require advance approval to go to get gynecological services. Section 1003: Premium Increase Reviews The Federal government and the States will review annual premium increases. States can recommend that a health insurance company be excluded from the exchange for unjustified premium increases. Subtitle B: "Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage" Section 1101: Creates the "high risk health insurance pool program" to cover people with pre-existing conditions until January 1, 2014 Could only be run by non-profit private insurers or States Insurer had to cover at least 65% of customer's medical costs Could vary premiums based on age no more than a 4:1 ratio Only open to United States citizens or lawful residents who had no health insurance for the 6 months prior to enrollment Provided $5 billion (this money ran out & the government - the House Republicans would have added money only if the Public Health fund were defunded, as ) High risk pool ends on January 1, 2014 and customers will then buy their insurance on the exchanges, when health insurers will not be allowed to deny them coverage anymore Section 1102: Reimbursement for employers who give health coverage to "early retirees" Employers who provide health insurance to people over 55 years old but under 65 (when Medicare kicks in) will be reimbursed for a portion of that expense. Payments will be 80% of the amount over $15,000 up to $90,000. Payments must be used for health care expenses & can not be used as general revenue or count as income. Provided $5 billion for this program Program ends on January 1, 2014, when everyone can buy insurance on the exchanges Section 1104: Orders the Secretary of Health & Human Services to develop "uniform standards" for The rules will be for communication between hospitals/doctors and the health insurance companies. Allows for the creation of "machine readable identification cards" Penalty fee will be assessed beginning on April 1, 2014 for health insurance companies that don't comply Fee is $1 per customer covered until they've completed the electronic information requirements. The fee is imposed for each day the plan is not in compliance. The fee is increased annually and capped at $20 per customer or $40 per customer if the insurance company purposely provides false or incomplete information. Penalty fees are paid to the Treasury Department and are due November 1 of each year starting in 2014. Subtitle C: "Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans" Section 1201: Health Insurance Market Reforms Health insurance companies can not exclude someone for having a pre-existing condition This law became effective for children starting six months after the Affordable Care Act was signed Premium rates are allowed to vary based on the following factors only: The number of people covered by the plan (individual or family) Location Age, but the rate can not vary more than a 3:1 ratio for adults Tobacco use, but the rate can not vary more than a 1.5:1 ratio Health insurance companies must accept every employer or individual customer who applies for coverage during their open enrollment periods. Health insurance companies can not deny a customer coverage due to health status, mental or physical illnesses, history of claims, medical history, genetic information, domestic violence history, disability, or any other health-related factor. Health insurance companies also have to renew your insurance policy Health insurance companies can offer rebates or premium discounts as a reward to customers' participation in wellness programs including: Reimbursement for fitness center memberships A disease testing program that does not base the reward on outcomes Waiving co-payments or deductibles for preventative care visits (prenatal care & well-baby visits) Reimbursement for programs that help people quit smoking, regardless of whether or not they can actually quit A reward for attending health education seminars Waiting periods can not be longer than 90 days This does not apply to the individual market (added by Section 10103) Section 1201 as changed by amendment (See Section 10103) Health insurance companies can't deny coverage for approved clinical trials for treatment of cancer or another life-threatening disease. Section 1251: Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces an individual to cancel the coverage they currently have. Grandfathered plans are exempt from the provisions of Subtitle A and Subtitle C, except for the provisions specifically listed below. New employees and their families can be enrolled in health plans that existed before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Section 1251 as changed by amendment (See Section 10103) Grandfathered plans must provide the easily understood summary of benefits from Section 1001 to their customers. Grandfathered plans must issue rebate checks under the Medical Loss Ratio just like new plans Health insurance companies covering large groups must spend 85% of your premiums on you, or they have to issue a rebate check. Health insurance companies covering people in the individual market or small groups through exchanges have to spend 80% of your premiums on you or issue a rebate check. Section 1251 as changed by the Reconciliation Act () Grandfathered plans are prohibited from enforcing waiting periods over 30 days. Grandfathered plans are prohibited from enforcing lifetime or annual limits to coverage (group plans only). Grandfathered plans can not drop you when you get sick. Grandfathered plans will also have to cover children until their 26th birthday. Grandfathered plans can not refuse an employee with pre-existing conditions. Subtitle D: "Available Coverage Choices for All Americans" Section 1302: Essential Health Benefits Requirements Essential health benefits to be included in all "qualified health plans": Ambulances Emergency room services Hospitalizations Maternity and newborn care Mental health Substance abuse treatment Behavioral health treatment Prescription drugs Rehabilitation services and devices Laboratory services Preventative care Chronic disease management Pediatric care, including dental and vision Health insurance companies are allowed to cover more than these minimums Coverage for emergency services can not require prior authorization Health insurance companies can't limit coverage because the ambulance took you to an out-of-network emergency room Out of pocket expense caps In 2014, an individual (not including premiums); after that, it can be increased by the same percentage as premium increases. Deductibles for employer-paid plans are capped at $2,000/year for individuals or $4,000/year for family plans. After 2014, these numbers can be increased by the same percentage as premium increases. Out-of-pocket caps do not include amounts for non-network providers or non-covered services Levels of Coverage Bronze: Covers 60% of medical costs Silver: Covers 70% of medical costs Gold: Covers 80% of medical costs Platinum: Covers 90% of medical costs Catastrophic Coverage available only on the individual market Plan provides no benefits until the person has spent the $5,000/year out-of-pocket limit (or whatever the limit is for that year, adjusted for inflation) Available only to people under 30 years old Available only if a monthly premium would exceed 8% of that person's income Section 1303 as changed by amendment (See Section 10104): Abortion Rules States can prohibit abortions from being offered by health insurance plans offered through the exchange. States must pass a law to do this. Health insurance plans do not need to include abortions. No Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions. No hospital or doctor's office can be discriminated against by insurance companies for not providing abortions. Section 1311: Health Insurance Exchanges States will be given Federal grants to set up their own health insurance exchanges, which are websites where people will compare and purchase their insurance plans. Grants will stop being awarded on January 1, 2015. Exchanges will include an "enrollee" satisfaction system for plans covering more than 500 people. Secretary must determine yearly open enrollment periods Stand-alone dental plans will be allowed on the exchanges. States are allowed to require more benefits than the Federal government requires, but must make up cost to individuals for extra costs if they're eligible for a tax credit. By 2015, exchanges must be self-sustaining and can charge user fees. Exchanges have to publish all payments required by the Exchange & the administrative costs. Interstate and regional exchanges are allowed. Creates "navigator" positions They will inform the public on the health plans, help people enroll, and help people understand their tax credits. Navigators are not allowed be employees of the health insurance industry Section 1311 as changed by amendments (See Section 10104) Health insurance companies need to publicly disclose - in plain language - information on claims payment policies, enrollment, denials, out-of-network charges, and customer rights. Section 1312: Health Insurance Eligibility & Members of Congress All customers in with a company's individual plan will be considered part of a one risk pool. All customers enrolled as employees of small businesses will be considered part of one risk pool. The individual and small business pools may be merged if the State determines it appropriate. Starting in 2017, States can permit large employers (over 101 employees) to offer insurance through the Exchange. Health insurance companies can offer insurance outside of the Exchanges. Only United States citizens and lawfully present foreigners will be allowed to purchase health insurance on the Exchange. Prisoners will not be eligible to buy insurance on Exchanges while they're still incarcerated The Federal Government can only offer health plans to members of Congress that are offered through an Exchange. Section 1312 as changed by amendment (See Section 10104) Agents and brokers are allowed to enroll employers and individuals in health insurance plans and help them apply for tax credits and out-of-pocket reductions. Section 1321: States Must Create Exchanges or Federal Government Will Do It For Them Department of Health and Human Services will provide an exchange for a State if the State operational by January 1, 2014. Section 1322: Grants for Creation of Non-Profit, Member-Run Health Insurance Companies The goal is to have at least one non-profit, member-run health insurance company in each State offer insurance on the individual and small business exchanges. If a State doesn't have a non-profit, member-run option, they will be loaned money to create one or to have one from elsewhere expand into their State. The loan must be repaid within 15 years (added by Section 10104) The non-profit, member-run health insurance companies are not allowed to use Federal funds for marketing. A health insurance company will not count as a non-profit, member-run insurance company unless "any profits made by the organization are required to be used to lower premiums, to improve benefits, or for other programs intended to improve the quality of health care delivered to its members." Non-profit, member-run health insurance companies will be tax exempt. Section 1323: Optional State Public Option (Killed by amendment: See Section 10104) States are allowed to offer a public option, labeled "community health insurance", but they are not required to. Section 1331: States Can Buy Insurance for Low-Income People Who Don't Qualify for Medicaid or Medicare To qualify for this program, if offered by your State: Must be a resident of the offering State Must be under 65 years old Your income needs to be between Section 1332: Waiver for States That Develop A Better System States that develop a system that covers as much and costs the same or less than the Federal system can apply for a waiver. If granted, they can enact their own system. The new system could begin on January 1, 2017. Section 1333: Allows Health Insurance Plans to Be Sold To Multiple States Health insurance companies would have to be licensed in all the States where its plans are sold. Health insurance companies would have to "clearly notify consumers that the policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the State in which the purchaser resides." Plans sold in multiple states - "health care choice compacts"- can begin on January 1, 2016. Section 1334 as added by amendment (See Section 10104): National Health Insurance Plans The Director of the Office of Personnel Management will contract with at least two insurance companies to offer insurance to the individual and small group markets in every state. At least one of these companies must be non-profit. Plans need to be licensed in each State where they offer coverage. States can require health insurance companies to offer additional benefits but must pay the additional cost. The multi-state insurance plans will be nationwide within four years. Section 1341: Insurance Companies Will Have Insurance for "High-Risk" Customers for First 3 Years Subtitle E: "Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans" Section 1401 as amended by : Tax Credits Taxpayers Making Between Get Tax Credits To Pay for Premiums The tax credit is for the amount the health insurance plan exceeds a percentage of a person's income, based on . The premium used for calculation is the second-lowest silver plan in the individual market where the taxpayer lives. Section 1402: Out-of-Pocket Limits Reduced Only applies to people who have purchased Silver Level coverage on an Exchange The standard out-of-pocket limits ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families) would be reduced for people making under 400% of the poverty level. Reduction Levels: People making 100%-200% of the poverty level will have their limit reduced by 2/3. People making 201%-300% of the poverty level will have their limit reduced by 1/2. People making 301%-400% of the poverty level will have their limit reduced by 1/3. No health insurance company will ever pay more than 94% of medical costs (increased by ). The Federal Government will pay the health insurance companies for the amount they reduce out-of-pocket limits Illegal immigrants are not eligible. Section 1411: How Government Will Determine Eligibility & Grant Individual Exemptions People or employers who disregard regulations and provide false information are subject to a $25,000 fine. People or employers who purposefully provide false information are subject to a $250,000 fine. No property can be taken away if the person or company doesn't pay the penalty. Section 1412: Advance Payment of Tax Credits and Out-of-Pocket Reductions Premium tax credits can be claimed in advance to help pay for premiums. Section 1415: Premium Tax Credits Don't Count As Income Section 1421 as changed by amendment (See Section 10105): Small Business Tax Credit Eligible employers must: Have fewer than 25 employees and Pay average annual wages of less than $50,000/year. Pay at least 50% of total premiums. Eligible employers who purchase coverage through the State exchange can get a tax credit of up to 50% of their health insurance costs. Tax-exempt eligible employers can get a tax credit of up to 35% of their health insurance costs. Subtitle F: "Shared Responsibility for Health Care" Section 1501 as changed by amendment (See Section 10106): The Individual Mandate Individuals must ensure that they and their dependents have health coverage every month starting in 2014. If individuals fail to get themselves and their dependents covered, they will pay a penalty for each month they and their dependents were uncovered. (t) The penalty in 2014 will be $95 or 1% of income, whichever is higher The penalty in 2015 will be $325 or 2% of income, whichever is higher The penalty in 2016 and after will be $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is higher. Penalties are capped at the cost of the national average for a bronze plan premium. Exemptions are allowed: For people in an exempt religious sect For members of a health care sharing ministry For Native Americans For people below 100% of the poverty level who can't afford available health insurance options People who have a coverage gap of less than three months (if the gap goes longer than three months, they get no exemption for any of that time) People who have proven to the Department of Health and Human Services that they have an extraordinary hardship. You can not be criminally prosecuted, thrown in jail, or have your property taken away if you fail to pay the penalty. Section 1502: Health Insurance Companies Will Report Your Coverage Status to the Government Every year, the Treasury Department will send notices to people who didn't get coverage telling them what is available to them on their State's exchange. Section 1503: Automatic Enrollment for Workers with Large Employers Companies with over 200 employees will automatically enroll their new full-time employees in one of the health plans they offer. Employees are allowed to opt out of their employer provided coverage. Section 1512: Workers Must Be Informed of Better Options If a company's health insurance plan doesn't cover at least 60% of medical expenses, the worker might be eligible for premium tax credits and out-of-pocket limit reductions. Companies need to inform their workers about the exchanges and provide a description of the exchange's services. Section 1513 as amended by Section 1003 : Employers With Over 50 Employees Starting January 1, 2014, they must offer their employees health insurance. If one or more of their employees received tax credits or an out-of-pocket limit reduction on the exchange, the employer will be fined $2,000 per full-time employee. They will not have to pay the penalty for the first 30 full-time employees. If the employer offers health insurance but the employee claims tax credits and/or out-of-pocket limit reductions on the exchange, the employer will be charged either $3,000 per employee receiving tax credits or $2,000 per full-time employee minus the first 30 employees, whichever is less. Employers can not have waiting periods for health coverage of over 60 days. (Eliminated by ) Fines are not tax deductible. Seasonal workers - that work less than 120 days per year -do not count as full-time employees. Section 1514: Large Employers Must Report Your Coverage Status to Government Section 1553: No One Can Discriminate Against Anyone Else For Not Providing Doctor Assisted Suicide Section 1558: Protection For Employees Employers may not fire or discriminate against any worker who reports, testifies, or helps the government prosecute an employer that has violated the Affordable Care Act. Section 1560: Hawaii Can Keep Its Health Care System Section 1563: TITLE II: "ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS" Subtitle A: Improved Access to Medicaid Section 2001 as amended by Section 10201: Medicaid for Poor People Starting in 2014, anyone making under 133% of the Federal Poverty Level will be eligible for Medicaid's health benefits. Medicaid's health benefits will include the essential benefits required of all health insurance plans on exchanges, prescription drugs, and mental health services. The Federal Government will pay States for the new Medicaid expenses at the following rates (changed by ): 100% for 2014-2016 95% for 2017 93% for 2019 90% for ever *The effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for the States. The result is that unfortunate souls making under 133% of the and will not have health care coverage. Via: Section 2004 as amended by Section 10201: Medicaid for Foster Children Beginning in 2014, States must cover former foster children in their Medicaid programs Subtitle B: "Enhanced Support For the Children's Health Insurance Program" Section 2101: Federal Financing of Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Federal Government will increase its contribution to States' CHIP programs by 23%, funding up to 100%. Subtitle C: "Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment Simplification" Section 2201: Electronic Enrollment By January 1, 2014, States must create websites that allow individuals to apply and enroll in Medicaid and CHIP States that fail to create the website will lose their Federal Medicaid money. Section 2202: Hospital Enrollment in Medicaid Allows hospitals to determine whether a person qualifies for Medicaid based on preliminary information in order to provide them with medical assistance. Subtitle D: "Improvements to Medicaid Services" Section 2301: Free-Standing Birth Centers Requires Medicaid cover services from free-standing birth centers. Section 2303: Family Planning Services States can, but don't have to, provide family planning services as part of Medicaid. Subtitle E: "New Options for States to Provide Long-Term Services and Supports" Section 2401: At Home Services Option Allows States to cover at home services - the kind that would usually be offered in an institution - to people under 150% of the Subtitle F: "Medicaid Prescription Drug Coverage" Section 2501: Prescription Drug Rebates Increases rebates for prescription drugs up to 100% of the cost of the drug. Section 2502: Additional Drugs Covered Drugs to help quit smoking, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines will be covered by Medicaid starting on January 1, 2014. Subtitle G: "Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments" Section 2551: Payment Reductions Reduces Federal payments to certain hospitals. Subtitle H: "Improved Coordination for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries" Section 2602: Medicaid and Medicare Coordination Creates a Federal Coordinated Health Care Office to coordinate the benefits of individuals who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare. Subtitle I: "Improving the Quality of Medicaid for Patients and Providers" Section 2703: Care for Medicaid Patients with Chronic Conditions Gives States the option to create teams of health professionals to manage care for Medicaid patients with chronic conditions. Chronic conditions include: Mental health disorders Substance abuse issues Asthma Diabetes Heart Disease Obesity Subtitle K: "Protections for American Indians and Alaska Natives" Section 2901: No Out-of-Pocket Costs for Certain Indians Indians at or below 300% of the will not have to pay out-of-pocket costs for insurance they get through a state exchange TITLE III: IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF HEALTH CARE Subtitle A: "Transforming the Health Care Delivery System" Section 3001: Links Hospital Payments to Performance Starting in 2013, a percentage of hospital payments will be tied to performance in treating common high-cost conditions (cardiac issues, surgeries, pneumonia, etc.) Section 3007: New System for Physician Payments Secretary of Health and Human Services must create a new budget-neutral payment system that will adjust Medicare payments to physicians based on the quality of care they deliver. New system will be phased in over two years beginning in 2015. Section 3008: Penalties for Poor Performance Hospitals in the top 25th percentile for rates of diseases caught inside the hospital will have a payment penalty through Medicare. Section 3011: National Strategy Secretary of Health and Human Services has to establish our national strategy to improve health care delivery and overall population health. Section 3025: Readmissions Reduction Ties Medicare payments to hospitals with the hospitals percentage of potentially preventable readmissions to the hospital. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will make readmission rates for certain conditions at every hospital available to the public. Subtitle B: "Improving Medicare for Patients and Providers" Section 3112: Eliminates "Medicare Improvement Fund" Saves over $22 billion Rest of Subtitle creates new systems and changes the way Medicare charges paid for by the government. Subtitle C: "Provisions Related to Part C" Section 3201: Limited Medicare Advantage Payments () Section 3202: Prevents Plans from Overcharging Prohibits private Medicare Advantage plans from charging more for basic Medicare services than actual Medicare charges. Medicare Advantage plans that offer extra benefits must prioritize reductions in out-of-pocket expenses and preventative care over their extra goodies. Section 3204: Seniors Can Return to Actual Medicare Seniors will be allowed to unenroll in their Medicare Advantage plans and return to real Medicare from January 1-March 15 of every year. Section 3209: Medicare Advantage Plan Denial Allowed Secretary of Health and Human Services now has the authority to prohibit Medicare Advantage plans that significantly increase cost to customers or decrease benefits offered to seniors. Subtitle D: "Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug Plans and MA-PD Plans" Section 3301: Donut Hole Discount Program Medicare Part D private insurance plans pay 75% of drug costs and then start paying 95% once the senior has spent $4,750. Between $2,960 and $4,750, the insurance company pays nothing. This window is known as the "coverage gap" or "donut hole". This section requires drug manufacturers provide a 50% discount for brand name drugs for seniors while paying out-of-pocket for drugs in the coverage gap. Even though they only pay 50% of cost, the full price of the drug will count as paid so that they get out of the coverage gap sooner. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was put in charge of implementation. Provides a $250 rebate to seniors who enter the "coverage gap""donut hole". Closes the Medicare Part D "coverage gap" "donut hole" by 2020. Section 3308: Reduces Medicare Subsidy for High-Income Seniors Section 3311: Medicare Advantage & Medicare Part D Complaint System Secretary of Health and Human Services will create a system so that seniors can submit complaints about the private Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D drug plans Subtitle E: "Ensuring Medicare Sustainablity" Section 3401: Changes Payment Structures for Medicare Payments Section 3402: Freezes Premiums for High Income Seniors at 2010 Levels until 2019 Section 3403: Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) Creates a 15 member board to propose ways to reduce the growth of Medicare spending. The board's recommendations will not go into effect during years that the Medicare growth rate is under control. The board will make non-binding recommendations during years when the Medicare growth rate is under control (added by Section 10320). The board is not allowed to propose anything that rations care, raises taxes, raises premiums for actual Medicare, increases out-of-pocket expenses for seniors, or reduces benefits. The board's suggestions will take effect unless Congress enacts alternative legislation that achieves the same level of savings. Subtitle F: "Health Care Quality Improvements" Provides funding for a variety of programs. Subtitle G: "Protecting and Improving Guaranteed Medicare Benefits" Section 3601: Nothing in This Law Can Cut Medicare Benefits Section 3602: Nothing in This Law Can Cut Medicare Advantage Benefits TITLE IV: PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASE AND IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH Subtitle A: "Modernizing Disease Prevention and Public Health Systems" Section 4002: Prevention and Public Health Fund Will provide $2 billion a year (starting in 2015) for public health programs that include research, health screenings, and immunizations. Subtitle B: "Increasing Access to Clinical Preventative Services" Section 4103: Free Wellness Plan for Medicare Seniors Seniors will get a physical their first year on Medicare and risk assessments every year following without having to pay a co-pay or deductible. Section 4107: Help to Quit Smoking for Pregnant Women on Medicaid States must provide counseling and products to help pregnant woman on Medicaid quit smoking with no out-of-pocket costs. Subtitle C: "Creating Healthier Communities" Section 4205: Nutrition Labeling at Chain Restaurants Chain restaurants with 20 or more locations have to provide the number of calories (or a calorie range for combo meals) on menus, boards, and drive-thru boards. Upon request by a customer, they must be able to provide calories from fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber, and protein. Section 4207: Break Time for Nursing Mothers Employers must allow nursing mothers break time to milk themselves. The employers do not have to pay the mothers for that time. Employers with under 50 employees are exempt. Subtitle D: "Support for Prevention and Public Health Innovation" Funds research and other programs. TITLE V: HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE Subtitle A: "Purpose and Definitions" Subtitle B: "Innovations in the Health Care Workforce" Creates a commission and provides grants. Subtitle C: "Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce" Section 5201: Federally Funded Medical Student Loans Federal government will help pay medical student loans if the student agrees to practice as a primary care physician for 10 years. Decreases the penalty for students who don't comply. Section 5202: Increases Student Loan Amounts for Nursing Students Section 5203: Federal Government Loan Payback for Pediatric Medicine Students If the student agrees to work full-time providing pediatric services, the Federal government will help pay their student loans up to $35,000 a year. Section 5204: Federal Government Service in Return For Loan Repayment If a medical student agrees to work for the government for 3 years or longer, the government will pay up to $35,000 of that student's loans. Subtitle D: "Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training" Subtitle E: "Supporting the Existing Health Care Workforce" Subtitle F: "Strengthening Primary Care and Other Workforce Improvements" Subtitle G: "Improving Access to Health Care Services" Section 5601: Provides Funding for Community Health Centers TITLE VI: TRANSPARENCY AND PROGRAM INTEGRITY Subtitle A: "Physician Ownership and Other Transparency" Section 6001: New For-Profit Doctor-Owned Hospitals Can Not Participate in Medicare Section 6002: Reporting on Industry Payments to Doctors Starting on March 31, 2013, pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers must report any kind of payments that they make to doctors. Manufacturers must report any ownership or investment relationships their doctor customers have with the company. Penalties for not reporting Between $1,000 an $10,000 for each payment that was not reported, capped at $150,000. If the manufacturer knowingly failed to report a payment, the penalty is $10,000-$100,000 for each payment that was not reported, capped at $1,000,000. The payment information reported on by manufacturers must be posted on a searchable website by September 30, 2013 (). Section 6004: Reports on Prescription Drug Samples Drug manufacturers and distributors must report the identity and quantity of drug samples requested and distributed every year. Section 6005: Pharmacy Reports Pharmacies need to report on their generic drug dispensing rate, rebates, discounts, and price concessions. Subtitle B: "Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement" Section 6103: The Department of Health and Human Services will operate a website that will allow customers to compare nursing homes by providing staffing data, certifications, complaints, and criminal violations. Section 6105: Creates a Standard Complaint Form Section 6111: Penalties Reduced for Self Reporting Secretary of Health and Human Services will be allowed to reduce penalties by 50% for facilities that report their own violations Subtitle C: "Nationwide Program for National and State Background Checks on Direct Patient Access Employees of Long Term Care Facilities and Providers" Section 6201: Background Checks Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish a system for doing background checks that include fingerprints on employees of long term care facilities. Subtitle D: "Patient Centered Outcomes Research" Subtitle E: "Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Program Integrity Provisions" Section 6401: Provider Screenings Secretary of Health and Human Services must establish procedures for screening providers and suppliers for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP All screening will include license checks Secretary can impose additional screenings including fingerprinting, background checks, and random visits. Providers and suppliers will have to report shady affiliations, suspended payments, if they're excluded from other Federal programs, and/or if they've had their billing privileges revoked. There will be an application fee of $200 for individual doctors and $500 for institutions every five years. Section 6404: Medicare Claims Must be Made Within 12 Months Section 6407: Physicians Must Have Face-to-Face Meeting With Patient Before Certifying Home Services Section 6411: Recovery Audit Contractors Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish contracts with auditors who will identify under and overpayments and collect overpayments for Medicaid services. The Secretary is required to include Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D. Subtitle F: "Additional Medicaid Program Integrity Provisions" Section 6501: Medicaid Termination States must terminate a Medicaid program if they were kicked out of Medicare or another State's Medicaid program. Section 6502: Medicaid Exclusions Medicaid must exclude an individual or company that owns or manages something that: Has unpaid overpayments Is suspended or excluded from participation Is affiliated with someone who is suspended or excluded from participation Section 6505: No Payments Can Go Outside of the United States Subtitle G: "Additional Program Integrity Provisions" Section 6601: Prohibits False Statements Insurance company employees can be prosecuted and sentenced up to 10 years in prison and fined if they lie about the plan's financial solvency, benefits, or regulatory status. Subtitle H: "Elder Justice Act" TITLE VII: IMPROVING ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE MEDICAL THERAPIES Subtitle A: "Biologics Price Comparison" Subtitle B: "More Affordable Medicines for Children and Underserved Communities" TITLE VIII: "CLASS ACT"(Repealed) TITLE IX: "REVENUE PROVISIONS" Section 9001 as amended by : Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Paid Insurance Plans Starting in 2018, there will be a on insurance companies for any health plan that costs more than $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The tax is 40% of the amount of the premium above $10,200 and $27,500. The tax begins at $11,850 for individuals and $30,950 for families for plans covering people over 55 and in high risk professions. The tax does not apply to plans sold on the individual market; it only applies to employer paid plans. The tax does not apply to stand alone dental or vision plans. Section 9002: Employer-Paid Health Benefits Will be Included on W-2 Forms Section 9008 as amended by : Pharmaceutical Industry Fee A fee of at least $2.8 billion a year will be divided by market share and paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. Section 9009 as amended by : The Medical Device Tax There will be a 2.3% deductible tax on the sale of medical devices to be paid by the manufacturer or importer. The tax is not applied to items sold directly to the public such as eyeglasses, contacts, etc. Section 9010 as amended by : Tax on Health Insurance Companies A non-deductible fee will be divided amongst all health insurance companies based on market share every year. The fee will not apply to insurance companies that make less than $50 million in net premiums. The fee will not apply to government or employers. Non-profits who get more than 80% of their money from government programs are exempt. The fee is: $8 billion in 2014 $11.3 billion in 2015-2016 $13.9 billion in 2017 $14.3 billion in 2018 2019 and beyond: The previous year's fee increased by the rate of premium growth Section 9012: Eliminate Incentives For Employers to Enroll in Medicare Part D Section 9013: Raises Threshold for Medical Expenses Deduction Increases from 7.5% to 10% Individuals over 65 can claim the deduction at 7.5% until 2016 Section 9014 as changed by amendment (See Section 10906): Tax on Wealthy Increases the hospital insurance tax on people earning over $200,000 a year individually or $250,000 married couples filing together by 0.9%. Section 9014 as changed by Tax on Wealthy Wall Street Income The hospital insurance tax will include a 3.8% tax on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and certain rents on people earning over $200,000 a year individually or $250,000 married couples filing together. Section 9017 as changed by amendment (See Section 10907): Tax on Elective Medical Procedures Indoor Tanning There will be a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery There will be a 10% tax on indoor tanning services. TITLE X: STRENGTHENING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS Buried in Section 10104: Dismissal of Fraud Cases Changes which determines how we prosecuted people who commit fraud, by eliminating this paragraph: In it's place, they put this: Section 10108: Free Choice Vouchers If a worker's health insurance contribution through their employer will be between 8%-9.8%, their employer has to offer them a voucher that will pay the employee's share if the worker would like to pick their own plan on the exchange. Section 10330: Update Computer Data Systems for Medicare and Medicaid Secretary of Health and Human Services must make a plan and determine the budget for modernizing the computer and data systems for Medicare and Medicaid Section 1103: Stops Medicare Advantage Excessive Profits Medicare Advantage plans must spend 85% of their revenue on medical costs rather than profit and overhead. Additional Information: Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Music: by Peter Alexander , Democracy Now, October 7, 2013. (describes why the large employer reporting requirements are delayed for a year), July 2, 2013. , Insurance Journal, December 5, 2012.

CD047: Talking Pointing

5 oktober 2013 | 36 min

In the hours before the government shutdown, the crisis could have been averted. We take a look at the hours before the deadline and see what Congress has done since they slammed the government's doors shut. Links to Information in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Music: by (found on ) Music: by (found on ) The is the one that has no attacks on the Affordable Care Act; if this bill comes up for a vote, it . Who to call to end the shutdown: The bills that passed before the shutdown: (CR = Continuing Resolution) Bill #1: The House CR that didn't really defund Obamacare the Affordable Care Act () Bill #2: The Senate CR that has not had a vote yet in the House () Bill #3: The House CR that delays the Affordable Care Act for year () : The House CR that delays the Affordable Care Act & kills employer-paid health benefits subsidies for Congress and their staff. : The House bill that requests a conference committee with Senate The bills that have passed the House of Representatives since the shutdown: Funds National Parks and some museums : Funds operations in Washington D.C. : Funds veterans benefits : Funds the National Institutes of Health : Funds the National Guard and reserves Representatives quoted in this episode who lied on the floor of the House of Representatives regarding a not-real Congressional exemption from the Affordable Care Act: Reality: . The Republicans & work out the budget differences with the Senate. Representatives quoted in this episode who claimed that Democrats refused to compromise: Representatives quoted in this episode who ran with the 'negotiate' talking point: The individual mandate - the key to the Affordable Care Act - caused by a refusal by House Republicans to raise the debt ceiling the House Republicans are considering attaching to a debt ceiling bill. The House plans to vote on as soon as the spotlight is gone. The bill that deregulates the derivatives market the House Financial Services Committee wants to deregulate the derivitives market : Prevents regulations that protect 401(k) retirement accounts the House Financial Services Committee wants to stop 401(k) protecting regulations Representatives Quoted in This Episode

CD042: House DHS Funding Bill

7 september 2013 | 40 min

In June 2013, the House of Representatives passed their version of a Department of Homeland Security funding bill. The House prioritizes border security and locking up immigrants at the expense of emergency preparedness and the TSA. Details and much more in this episode... Links to Information in This Episode The House version of the Department of Homeland Security funding bill (has not been signed into law) The explanation for funding levels, which is more interesting to read than the bill itself History of the Department of Homeland Security Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Song: Warden Pale's Big Profit Prison by inside the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's as DHS Secretary to the National Press Club on August 27, 2013 DHS's headquarters is still Democracy Now with Judy Greene, justice policy analyst for Justice Strategies, from May 4, 2006 Story of the Boston Marathon bombers: , the unlucky but badass guy who remembered Tamerlan's face and helped the F.B.I. catch the Boston bomber brothers. Page 36 of the "DoD has researched, developed and employed advanced surveillance technologies for service in overseas con flits such as Iraq and Afghanistan. As these conflicts come to a close, technologies such as VADER, aerostats, manned and unmanned aerial systems, and associated audio, visual, radar, and other detection and monitoring systems in use or under development may become excess equipment... ... DHS should actively seek to capitalize on DOD's expertise and work with DOD to expedite the identification, designation, transfer and integrations of technologies and equipment to support border security improvements." : The "excess military article" DHS may soon receive which can see people from 25,000 feet in the air : The spy blimps What are ? -see page 6 for ATS-P(assenger) information website Ammonium nitrite was 270 tons of ammonium nitrite exploded on April 17, 2013 in West, Texas and caused this explosion: And this is what it was like for the resident's of West, Texas: The storage facility that exploded had 270 tons of ammonium nitrite (they're allowed to have 1 ton) but about it. The facility had by the Department of Labor in 1985. The facility had . Sets out the rules for intelligence sharing that says the software they use must not transmit any personally identifiable information in accordance with privacy law but.. "This section shall not apply to the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government and shall apply to all Federal agencies within the executive branch except for the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence"

CD041: Why Attack Syria?

30 augusti 2013 | 41 min

While the U.S. Congress remained on vacation, British Parliament was called back to debate a pending attack on Syria. We also look at some facts about Syria that suggest we might be getting into a Shock Doctrine type of situation. Links to Information in This Episode Intro Music: by (found on ) Song: by (found on ) Buy by Naomi Klein (Amazon) of the British Parliament debate on August 29, 2013 of the Syrian chemical attack on August 20, 2013 Obama Administration says an attack According to the British, there have been of the random Syrian Assad supporter The twelve things about Syria the Assad supporter wanted Americans to know: There is a , and in the Middle East in general Syria must share its water with neighbors: Syria has oil reserves Assad's intends for Syria to become a transportation hub for fossil fuels Syria, Iraq, and Iran signed a $10 billion deal for a natural gas pipeline that would export Iranian natural gas out of Damascus () : President Obama announces that Assad must resign The United States sanctions on Iran around the world on behalf of the American monopoly patent holders in their humanitarian missions Strengthening the monetary policy framework and the financial sector 29. Notwithstanding the progress in activating monetary policy in the past two years, Syria's monetary policy framework remains rudimentary and in need of major strengthening to allow the central bank to use indirect instruments of monetary control to operate effectively in a financial system that will increasingly become market-based. Indirect instruments will strengthen the price mechanism in the financial sector, ensuring a more efficient allocation of financial resources and a proper pricing of financial risks. 30. Progress toward this medium-term goal should start by having the central bank gain full control of existing direct instruments. The central bank should have the right to decide on credit ceilings and credit policies of banks with a view to ensuring a pace of credit and monetary expansion consistent with maintaining price stability while fostering economic activity and employment. Banks have to abide by all prudential regulations. Beyond this, the role and responsibilities of the central bank and the ministry of finance in exercising oversight on the banks should be clearly defined. While the government could play a lead role in choosing the board and the management of public banks, the CBS should have the authority to evaluate and approve banks' policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment. 31. Furthermore, the CBS should have operational independence and the institutional capacity to exercise effective banking supervision. Indeed, in the absence of effective banking supervision, the strong credit growth and the rapid opening of the banking system could endanger the soundness of the financial sector. Therefore, the mission urges the authorities to: give the central bank power to: (i) address noncompliance, as well as safety and soundness concerns it may have for certain banks, and (ii) to ensure that fit and proper criteria are met in appointing senior staff in public and private banks and that credit policies are consistent with safe and sound best practices; allocate adequate resources to continue to build capacity for banking supervision; and complete the banking supervision framework including a licensing manual to ensure prudent and transparent licensing policy. (Another article ) "Rebels" after Qaddafi was removed from power The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran is

CD040: History of the Department of Homeland Security

26 augusti 2013 | 44 min

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) did not exist before September 11, 2001. In this episode, we look back at the bills that created these new government agencies. Links to Information in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Music: by (found on ) The Department of Homeland Security was created by the (signed into law on November 25, 2002). President Bush signs the Homeland Security Act into law. Contains an interview with , former President of Public Citizen The stated purpose was to consolidate all departments related to "homeland security" into one cabinet in response to the September 11 attacks. Twenty-two agencies were brought into the new department: New $4.5 billion Department of Homeland Security headquarter complex ; they just moved over the last few weeks. The Homeland Security Act was passed ; corporate friendly provisions were slipped into the bill. orders the Department of Homeland Security to start data-mining: "To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the chief information officer of the Department, a secure communications and information technology infrastructure, including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze eta and information in furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the Department, as appropriate." Contains a Pentagon press conference by Pete Aldridge, then Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, during which he explains the plan for Contains an interview with Gail Russell Chaddock, author of an about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security "According to government documents, the fusion centers collect cell phone numbers, insurance claims, credit reports, financial records, and names of relatives and associates. The information is shared among law enforcement officials nationwide." - Private intelligence companies such as Contains details on a Senate report that concluded Department of Homeland Security fusion centers to be "useless" [caption id="" align="alignright" width="275"] Border Patrol drones (Source: DHS.gov)[/caption] about immigration prisons Contains and interview with Judy Greene, justice policy analyst for The Transportation Security Administration was created by the signed into law on November 19, 2001. The act federalized airport security. Contains information about the Bush administrations resistance to federalizing airport security Contains information on Argenbright Security, the private security company which failed to detect the 9/11 hijackers at Newark International Airport and Washington-Dulles International Airport. Watch the September 11 hijackers walked by - not through- the metal detectors monitored by employees of . , was the security firm at Boston Logan airport on September 11, 2001. Both of the planes that hit the World Trade Center in New York City originated from Boston Logan International Airport & all the hijackers went undetected through security managed by Huntleigh. After airport screening operations were federalized, , calling the federalization "unfair". The allows airport security operations to be re-privatized. Sixteen airports currently have private security. Section 147 of the limited liability for the owners and operators of the World Trade Center and New York City for the events of September 11: (b) EXTENSION OF LIABILITY RELIEF TO AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS- Section 408 of that Act is amended-- (1) by striking `air carrier' in the section heading; (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: `(a) IN GENERAL- `(1) LIABILITY LIMITED TO INSURANCE COVERAGE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity, arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against an air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person with a property interest in the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001, whether fee simple, leasehold or easement, direct or indirect, or their directors, officers, employees, or agents, shall not be in an amount greater than the limits of liability insurance coverage maintained by that air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person. `(2) WILLFUL DEFAULTS ON REBUILDING OBLIGATION- Paragraph (1) does not apply to any such person with a property interest in the World Trade Center if the Attorney General determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the person has defaulted willfully on a contractual obligation to rebuild, or assist in the rebuilding of, the World Trade Center. `(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY FOR NEW YORK CITY- Liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against the City of New York shall not exceed the greater of the city's insurance coverage or $350,000,000. If a claimant who is eligible to seek compensation under section 405 of this Act, submits a claim under section 405, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, including any such action against the City of New York. The preceding sentence does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations.'; and (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: `Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil actions to recover collateral source obligations. Nothing in this section shall in any way limit any liability of any person who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport sponsor.'. , New York Times, November 26, 2002. Information regarding the history of the World Trade Center construction, New York City building codes, and the death tolls from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were from : Hurricane Katrina exposed the dis-function of the Department of Homeland Security Contains an interview with Matthew Brzezinski, author of " Representatives Quoted in this Episode (clip from House floor, November 16, 2001) (clip from House floor, November 22, 2002)

CD039: The Charter School Bill

18 augusti 2013 | 32 min

On July 19, 2003, the House of Representatives passed that would largely eliminate the Federal government's role in K-12 education and expand the number of charter schools in the United States. stated purpose is to undo a portion of the 2009 stimulus bill (the ) called , along with a program that Race to the Top helped enact in most of the United States. Race to the Top was a $4.35 billion contest between the States. Financial prizes were awarded to states based on school performance, teacher performance, data reporting, among other factors; one of the most critical factors was the adoption of Common Core standards. are national minimum standards for English and math education that are intended to be adopted by the entire country. The standards were cleverly implemented. In 2009, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers wrote the standards and then copyrighted the text. By copyrighting the text, the authors ensured that the standards could not be changed by individual states after their adoption, which in effect, created a national standard. The next step was to get the states to adopt the standards. That's where Race to the Top came in. In order to be eligible to participate in the Race to the Top contests, States had to adopt the Common Core standards. All but five states did; Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska refused to participate. Minnesota adopted English standards, but not math. Essentially, the States had a choice whether or not they would participate in implementing a national standard for education; Race to the Top gave the States incentives and the push mostly worked. [caption id="attachment_820" align="aligncenter" width="645"] Common Core has been adopted in most states[/caption] Since then, a concentrated effort to stop Common Core has emerged; Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma legislatures are actively trying to stop implementation. H.R. 5 would help the haters get rid of the Common Core national standards and put control of education policy firmly in the hands of individual states: States can only receive Federal money if they have developed standards for reading, math, and science and have students take annual math and reading tests. The Secretary of Education must approve a State's plan within 120 days. If it disapproves, the Federal government can't list specific things the State should change. The Federal government is prohibited from directly or indirectly forcing or incentivizing the adoption of national standards, specifically Common Core. (TITLE V) In fact, the bill aimed to take the Federal government out of all aspects of education: No State would need Federal approval for academic standards to receive Federal money (TITLE V) The Federal government can't influence a State's choice of curriculum (TITLE V) The Federal government can't test students or teachers. (TITLE V) States will fill out their own annual report cards. (Section 111) New school programs would not be required to work specifically with Head Start and other government pre-school programs (Section 115) Charter Schools One aspect of Race to the Top would continue, however, is the provision lifting the caps on the number of charter schools. In fact, the expansion of charter schools is a clearly stated goal of H.R. 5: "It is the purpose of this subpart to - (2) provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools; (3) expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the nation; () Charter schools are sort-of public schools; they are funded by our taxpayer money but they are exempt from some education standards. Naomi Klein, author of , described them as "publicly funded institutions run by private entities according to their own rules." Charter schools are allowed to create their own curriculum and often are not required to provide student services such as transportation and meals like the traditional public schools. Funding for charter schools is determined state by state, but often the states fund charter schools by diverting money away from the traditional public school district where the new charter school is built. Charter schools are not allowed to charge tuition or use taxpayer money to upgrade their facilities. Unlike traditional public schools, there are avenues for private profit to be made in the charter school system. Charter schools - whether started by a non-profit, university, or our government- can be managed by for-profit corporations. TITLE III: "Parental Engagement & Local Flexibility" expands the charter school system Charter schools will get as much money as public schools States must pass a law giving charter schools money per student to be eligible for Federal grants No limit on the number or percentage of schools that can be charter schools "Individuals directly involved in the operation of charter schools" need to be consulted by the State while they are developing rules and regulations 15% of funding can be used for facilities and instructional materials Public money will be used to attract private money for property and construction Evaluations will be done on how the government distributed money to charter schools, not what the charter schools do with the money Makes it easier to overhaul entire education systems: Section 115 allows local governments to change their entire education systems; currently, this can only be done in districts where over 40% of the students are from low-income families New programs can be provided by for-profit businesses. Lowers qualification and accountability standards: Data used to evaluate schools would only have to be "evidence based" instead of "scientifically based research" (throughout the bill) Teachers need to be "effective" instead of "highly qualified" (throughout the bill) Repeals minimum qualifications for teachers (Section 119) Gives public money for setting up teacher evaluations systems and furthering teacher education in States; the process can be privatized. (TITLE II) Schools teaching teachers can't be required to have degree-holding faculty, restrictions on infrastructure spending, or accreditation (TITLE II) Addresses some of the criticisms of charter schools: Provides public money for transportation and nutrition services (Section 105) Provides public money for expanding charter school programs for kids with disabilities (Section 131) Provides public money for programs for kids who need to learn English; the administration can be privatized (Section 131) Gives charter school and private businesses a larger role in State education policies : Federal money can only go to states with an educational plan that will be written in part by "public charter school representatives, private sector employers, and entrepreneurs." (Section 111) "Peer review boards" will be created to monitor charter schools. 10-35% of the boards must be "representatives of private sector employers". Federal government employees are prohibited from participating (Section 111) Advisory boards that review regulations will have seats for charter school representatives, charter school teachers, and private school representatives (Section 151) Local governments need to let private schools help write the programs that how much public money private schools get; local governments must explain any disagreements in writing and an appeal process will be established for private schools (Section 120) Expands public funding for education services provided by for-profit organizations: Eliminates a requirement that 90% of funds are to go towards "free public education" - this is called the "maintenance of effort" requirement (Section 121) Provides grants of at least $500,000 to organizations that teach "family engagement policies" (TITLE III) Provides grants to "non-governmental entities" which can be public or private organizations, faith-based organizations, or businesses to "increase academic achievement" of public school students (TITLE III) Provides public money for after school, summer school, and tutoring - both online and on-campus (Section 105, TITLE III) Provides public money for private school students, including tutoring (Section 120) Provides public money to private schools based on the number of students enrolled instead of their number of low-income students, unless this is illegal in that State and this can be waived (Section 120) Creates an ombudsman to make sure private schools get their new, increased share of public money (Section 120) The task of administering public funds can be privatized by the States (Section 120) Ideological provisions: Repeals grants for the Close Up Foundation, which teaches high school students about the democratic process (Section 141) Federal government can't require the distribution of "scientifically or medically false" materials or prohibit the distribution of "scientifically or medically true" materials (TITLE V) Federal money can't be used for sex education that doesn't teach abstinence (TITLE V) Federal money can't pay for contraceptive programs (TITLE V) Local governments accepting Federal money need to give the names, addresses, and phone numbers of high school students to military recruiters unless the parents opt-out in writing. The opt-out expires on the student's 18th birthday (TITLE V) Links to Information & Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Music: by (found on ) Edison Learning (a school management company that has recently switched its focus to testing, summer school, and tutoring) working for them this year. Sylvan Learning Centers (tutoring services) working for them this year. Rosetta Stone (language learning software) working for them this year. Representatives Quoted in This Episode

CD038: Wasting July

9 augusti 2013 | 32 min

In this episode, we catch up on most of the bills that passed the House during the last two weeks of August. A lot of bills were passed; very few have a prayer of becoming law. Intro and Exit Music: by (found on ) Is now law Covered in detail in the second half of Continues a system designed to expedite the approval of anti-biotics for animals Caps revenues from application fees paid by pharmaceutical companies Music: by (found on ) Has been amended by the Senate, passed the House again on July 31, and is now on the President's desk Original version covered in Now ties student loan interest loan rates to the market and caps rates at 8.25% for undergraduates and 9.5% for graduate students Student loan rate will be fixed at the rate where it starts for the life of the loan CBO predicts the rates will be above the current 6.8% starting in 2017 [caption id="attachment_801" align="aligncenter" width="912"] Congressional Record for July 31, page H5219[/caption] Passed the House on July 30, 2013 Public schools will be allowed to stockpile epinephrine for students with food allergies and train staff to administer it Passed the House on July 25, 2013 States will be allowed the regulate coal waste instead of the Federal government Gives the coal industry 10 years to meet groundwater protection standards Prohibits the EPA from categorizing waste from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and tar sands as 'hazardous waste'. saying that fossil fuel waste should not be classified as hazardous: Today's action applies to all remaining fossil fuel combustion wastes other than high volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utilities and independent power producing facilities and manage separately which were addressed by a 1993 regulatory determination. These include: Large-volume coal combustion wastes generate at electric utility and independent power producing facilities that are co-managed together with certain other coal combustion wastes; coal combustion wastes generated at facilities with fluidized bed combustion technology; petroleum coke combustion wastes, wastes from the combustion of mixtures of coal and other fuels (i.e, co-burning); wastes from the combustion of oil, and wastes from the combustion of natural gas. The Agency has concluded these wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle C or RCRA and is retaining the President Obama and his EPA wanted to classify fossil fuel wastes a hazardous Petroleum Coke blowing over Detroit Passed the House on August 1, 2013 EPA is not allowed to issue a regulation costing over $1 billion The social cost of carbon - climate change, cancer rates, etc. - can't be used in a cost-benefit analysis Passed the House on July 31, 2013 Was called the Forces Federal agencies to get Congressional approval for all major rules that cost over $100 million, affect the finances of businesses, or create a carbon tax If Congress does nothing for 70 working days, the rule can't be enacted None of this is subject to judicial review Monetary policy by the is exempted Passed the House on July 31, 2013 Government can't spend more than $500,000 on any individual conference All materials presented at the conference must be posted online Private companies can spend money on government conferences Three bills were combined into one and passed the House on August 1, 2013 Allows businesses to record in-person and telephone conversations with Executive Branch agencies such as the EPA, OSHA, and the IRS. Makes it easier to fire high level federal employees Caps the bonuses of federal employees and prevents 2/3 of eligible federal employees from getting bonuses at all Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. — Eric Cantor (@GOPLeader) Passed the House on July 31, 2013 Each agency must establish customer service standards including targets for response times, processing of benefits & payments, etc. Create a pilot program for the IRS and two other agencies to collect taxpayer complaints Gives no money or extra personal to the agencies to implement these new policies The full story of the IRS scandal: IRS can't have any conferences until they implement a bunch of recommendations IRS agents must be reminded that taxpayers have rights But they can still give political groups tax exempt status (<- not in bill, but still true) Prohibits the IRS from enforcing the tax provisions of ObamaCare Thank you for having me on your show! Representatives Quoted in This Episode

CD029: Keystone XL Pipeline

24 maj 2013 | 40 min

The House passed , a bill waiving permit requirements for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and passed , a bill that could raise interest rates for college students while tying their rates to the market. Links to Information in this Episode: Music: by (downloaded from ) , the Keystone XL bill. about Keystone XL's effect on the climate. Refineries in Texas are . Keystone XL route from Canada to Texas running through their land. [caption id="attachment_577" align="aligncenter" width="758"] Bitumen is not oil; it's tar and is sticky like peanut butter.[/caption] 2010 tar sands spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan . [caption id="attachment_578" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Tar sands oil sinks near Kalamazoo, Michigan: August 1, 2010. Source: EPA[/caption] Keystone XL will go over the Ogallala Aquifer from the tar sands spill in Mayflower, Arkansas [caption id="attachment_580" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Tar sands oil next to a home in Mayflower, Arkansas. Source: EPA[/caption] [caption id="attachment_581" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Tar sands oil flows onto a residential street in Mayflower, Arkansas. Source: EPA[/caption] [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Another river of tar sands oil in Mayflower, Arkansas.[/caption] from the oil spill fund [caption id="attachment_582" align="aligncenter" width="640"] The pipe that burst in Mayflower, Arkansas was 20 inches in diameter; Keystone XL will be 36 inches in diameter.[/caption] Tar sands energy James Hansen, NASA climatologist, NYT Op-Ed [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="464"] Look how big these earth movers are! Takes a lot of carbon to operate these beasts.[/caption] of the Keystone XL pipeline saying the State Department review isn't good enough for Canadian tar sands. Keystone XL Keystone XL probably Keystone XL Americans are to Keystone XL Music: by () , the student loan bill. Music: by () , the bill that prohibits lying about military medals. , the bill that penalizes chemical attacks and attacks on ships and gives corporations U.S. protection. Representatives Quoted in Order of Appearance

CD028: The IRS Scandal

18 maj 2013 | 31 min

In this episode, highlights from the House Ways and Means Committee IRS scandal hearing. IRS staffers made a list of keywords including Tea Party, 9-12, Patriot, etc. to help them find social welfare groups applying for tax exempt status that were actually political in nature. This is the scandal you've been told about; the real scandal is how many of them have been approved. Background In January of 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the infamous Citizen's United case that corporations count as people and that corporation donations count as speech, making them protected by the Constitution. This opened the floodgates to large amounts of corporate money making its way into U.S. elections. At the same time, the IRS saw a sharp increase in the number of groups claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. Groups that qualify do not have to pay taxes to the U.S. government and, more importantly to political groups, do not have to disclose their donors. The law for 501(c)(4) groups says that they must exist "exclusively" for social welfare purposes, but an I says that they must exist "primarily" for social welfare purposes. That wiggle room has been applied broadly, to put it mildly, and we now have clearly political groups claiming tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) organizations. In March of 2010, the division of the IRS charged with making sure that groups claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code were "primarily" social welfare groups, not political groups, made a list of keywords to look for in the names of groups that might indicate the groups were political in nature. The keywords they looked for include: "" "Patriots" "" References to government spending, government debt, or taxes "Make America a better place" Statements criticizing how the country is being run. The IRS employees also asked questions that were considered unnecessary when they were finally analyzed by IRS management. Although the list was inappropriate, most of the groups analyzed during the same time period had names unrelated to the list. In the end, the IRS Inspector General found no evidence of corruption at the IRS; instead, they concluded the problems arouse out of mismanagement. However, the real problem as far as us American citizens are concerned, is that clearly political groups are being given tax-exempt status, allowing them to keep their donors secret. Out of the 298 applications the IRS Inspector General reviewed, 0 had been denied. Here are some examples of groups that enjoy tax-exempt status as social welfare groups: , the group co-founded by Karl Rove the group that worked on behalf of the Obama campaign. and , front groups for the billionaire Koch brothers' interests , the group that focuses on "building the progressive movement". Further Reading Also in This Episode Bills that passed the House of Representatives this week: People Quoted in This Episode Steve Miller, acting Commission of the IRS (has since resigned) Russel George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

CD021: Trailblazer vs. ThinThread

7 april 2013 | 52 min

Part 3 of the continuing resolution followed by a history of Trailblazer and ThinThread, the NSA's spying programs. *Forward to 28:20 to hear the Trailblazer vs. Thinthread (NSA spying) story* Executive Producer: Kevin B= Billion M= Million DIVISION E: VETERANS Title I—Department of Defense Construction (TOTAL: $10.6 B) $1.7 B: Army construction available until 2017 for "acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facilities, and real property… and host nation support" $1.5 B: Navy & Marine construction available until 2017 $323 M: Air Force construction available until 2017 $3.5 B: Defense-wide construction available until 2017 Includes $27 M for a new NATO headquarters $614 M: Army National Guard construction available until 2017 $42 M: Air National Guard construction available until 2017 $306 M: Army Reserve construction available until 2017 $50 M: Navy Reserve construction available until 2017 $11 M: Air Force Reserve construction available until 2017 $254 M: NATO construction of military facilities and installations available indefinitely $535 M: Army family housing, available until 2017 See Section 8058 () $480 M: Navy & Marines housing, available until 2017 $582 M: Air Force housing, available until 2017 $54 M: Defense-wide housing, available until 2017 $151 M: For chemical destruction, available until 2017 $536 M: Base closures, available indefinitely Section 101 No cost-plus contracts over $25,000 except in Alaska Section 105 No money can be used to buy land for more than it's worth except When it's negotiated by the Attorney General The value is less than $25,000 Defense Secretary says it's cool Section 109 No money can be used to pay property taxes in foreign nations Section 111 No money can be used for contracts over $500,000 for projects in Japan, a NATO member country, or a country bordering the Arabian Sea unless the contract goes to a US company or a partnership including US companies Section 126 No money can be used to expand the in Colorado Title II—Department of Veterans Affairs (TOTAL VETERANS BENEFITS: $127.5 B) $60.5 B: Veteran's benefits $12 B: Readjustment benefits $55 B: Veteran's medical care $2 B: Overseas Veterans Benefits Administration employee mail $3 B + reimbursements: IT upgrades Title III—Related agencies Title IV—Overseas contingency operations Title V—General provisions Section 503 No money can be used by the executive branch for any media productions designed to support or defeat Congressional legislation, except for media for a presentation to Congress itself. Section 509 No porn allowed. Section 511 No transfers out of Guantanamo Bay. Section 512 No first class travel for the executive branch. Section 513 Can't use illegal immigrants for construction work. Section 514 Can't contract with a corporation that's been convicted of a felony unless "agency" says it's cool Section 515 Can't contract with a corporation with unpaid taxes unless agency say's it's cool DIVISION F—ENERGY, FINANCIAL SERVICES, ENVIRONMENT, QUALITY OF LIFE, CONGRESS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HOUSING & TRANSPORTATION Title I—General Provisions Keeping the 2012 appropriations for the following departments () Department of the Interior Department of Energy Department of Treasury District of Columbia Environmental Protection Agency Department of Labor Department of Health and Human Services Department of Education Legislative Branch Department of State Department of Transportation Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 1104 None of these departments can start or resume a project that wasn't authorized during 2012 Section 1109 Extra money for: $40 M: Disabled coal miners $106 B: Medicaid grants to states $1 B: Child support enforcement $2 B: Foster care $19 B: Social Security Title II—Energy and Water Development Section 1203 1.8 B: Renewable energy and energy efficiency Section 1205 $7.5 B: Nuclear weapons activities Section 1206 Extra $110 M for "domestic uranium enrichment, research, development, and demonstration." Title III—Financial Services and General Government Title IV—Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Section 1401 Decrease Bureau of Land Management from $962 M to $951 M $0 for BLM construction $2.2 B: National Park Service $726 M: Wildland fire management Section 1405: Environmental Protection Agency (Total: $8 B) $785 M: Science and Technology $2.6 B: Environment Programs and Management $1.1 B: Hazardous Substance Superfund (lowered by $40 M) $3.5 B: State and Tribal Assistance Grants Section 1408 $1.5 B: Forest Service $2 B: Forest Service Wildland fire management Section 1412 Defunds the , which helped turn a military installation into a part in San Francisco Section 1416 (… agreed to by unanimous consent) Prohibits EPA from enforcing an on farms for the next 6 months Farm means "a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a year." Compliance deadline is May 10, 2013 "Facilities' includes oil transportation pipelines. The rule forces facilities (NOT OIL COMPANIES) to: The oil spill prevention plan which EPA is prohibited from enforcing would have had to include: Quantity and type of oil that could be spilled Map of areas that would be affected by a spill Written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials required to control and remove spilled oil Emergency response plan Get the plan certified by an engineer Put up containment and diversionary structures Report spills over 1,000 barrels Report multiple spills over 42 barrels that happened in the same 12 month period, including the cause of the failure Title V—Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Section 1502 $3.1 B: Unemployment insurance Section 1510 $2.3 B: Child Care block grant Section 1511 $33.5 M: Head Start Title VI—Legislative Branch Section 1601 $193,400 to Irene Hirano, widow of Senator Daniel K. Inouye Section 1605 $61 M: Fix the Capitol Dome Title VII—Department of State, Foreign Oper-ations, and Related Programs Section 1701 $2 B: International peacekeeping activities Section 1703 $3.1 B: International security assistance Section 1707 $1.2 B: Embassy security upgrades Title VIII—Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Section 1805 $2 B: Homeless grants DIVISION G—OTHER MATTERS Section 3001: Additional cuts Division A: 2.513% sequester cut Division B: 1.877% sequester cut Section 3002 Sequester lives Monsanto Protection Act Section 735 of Division A (Department of Agriculture) Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act prohibits regulated plant "pests", like weeds, that are somehow considered harmful if allowed to be freely grown in the United States. Anyone is allowed to petition to have a plant removed from the regulated list. If the Secretary of Agriculture chooses to regulate a plant that was previously unregulated, this bill says the Secretary "shall" "immediately grant temporary permits" which will authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, or commercialization, while the petition is evaluated. Section 735 was slipped into the bill by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri who has been given and other agribusiness giants. A pipeline capable of carrying 90,000 barrels of tar-sands oil per day burst near Mayflower, Arkansas, forcing the evacuation of 22 homes. FYI: The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would carry 800,000 barrels of tar-sands oil from Canada to the Texas coast. Trailblazer vs. ThinThread ... or listen to the podcast :) of former AT&T engineer turned whistleblower Mark Klein on Countdown with Keith Olbermann of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testifying to the Senate in 2007 regarding the Bush Administration's attempt reauthorize their illegal spying program.

CD020: Continuing Resolution, Part 2

29 mars 2013 | 70 min

Part 2 of the Continuing Resolution which funds the government until September 30th. In this section, we look at the funding for the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security. B= Billion M= Million DIVISION C: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT (TOTAL FUNDING: $597,086,714,000) Title I—Military Personnel $127.5 B: Total funding Title II—Operation and Maintenance $173 B: Total funding Title III—Procurement $100 B: Total funding Public funding for private procurements In every category: "Expansion of public and private plants including the land necessary" "Procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants" "contractor-owned equipment lay-away" = no interest is charged Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy No money can be used to construct ships in foreign shipyards Title IV—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $70 B: Total funding Title V—Revolving and Management Funds $1.5 B: Defense Working Capital Funds Title VI—Other Department of Defense Programs $32.7 B: Health programs $1.1 B: Drug rehab programs for military personnel $350 M: Inspector General Title VII—Related agencies Title VIII—General provisions Section 8001 No money can be used for publicity or propaganda Section 8002 Laws prohibiting employment of non-citizens doesn't apply to the Department of Defense Salary increases for foreigners can't be more than civilian DoD employees get or more than the person's home country provides, whichever is higher This doesn't apply to Turkish citizens working for the Defense Department. Section 8020 No money can be used for national or international political or psychological activities Section 8024 No money can be used to by steel plates which were not produced in the U.S. or Canada Section 8026 DoD may contract out depot maintenance activities to private firms if done in a competitive way The Bush administration's procedure was known as an will not be used Became in 2007 Walter Reed was privatized in 2006 to IAP Worldwide Services, which was owned by a capital management company headed by Bush's former Treasury Secretary, John Snow. The company itself was headed by former high ranking executives from KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary. 2004: The Army it would be more cost-effective to do the work in-house Immediately after taking control of Walter Reed, the company cut staff from 180 workers to 100. The A-76 process seemed to favor the private sector and allowed inherently governmental functions to be transferred to the private sector Section 8035 If someone puts a label saying "Made in America" on a product that wasn't, that person may be prohibited from contracting with the Defense Department. Section 8039 No money can be used to contract a Defense Department function that is currently done by government employees unless: A price competition is performed The private contractor would be less expensive by at least 10% or $10 M The contractor doesn't skimp on employee health insurance coverage in order to win the bid This doesn't apply to depot maintenance $23.5 B appropriated for depot maintenance, which is over $811 M more than requested. Section 8044 No money can go towards reducing the staff at medical treatment facilities below levels from September 30, 2003 Section 8047 Defense Department can only purchase supercomputers that are made in the United States, unless they want something that isn't available here Section 8050 No Defense Department funds can go towards paying a contractor bonus that is more than 100% of that person's salary or a bonus that's part of a merger Section 8054 The Defense Department can upgrade the heating system at the Kaiserslautern Military Community in Germany as long as the new system uses United States coal Section 8057 Defense Department can't train any foreign security forces that have committed human rights abuses, but this can be waived by the Defense Secretary in "extraordinary circumstances" Section 8058 No funds can be used for repairs or maintenance to military family housing units Section 8063 No funds can be used to transfer armor piercing weapons to any non-governmental entity Section 8065 Defense Department money spent on stocking or selling alcohol on military bases needs to go to locally produced beer and wine. Applies to bases in States "which are not contiguous with another State." Section 8070 $479,736,000 for Israel $211 M for Iron Dome Missile defense ($0 requested) Section 8076 No money can go towards developing nuclear armed missile interceptors Section 8079 No money will be available for using foreign intelligence that wasn't lawfully collected "Information pertaining to United States' persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through Executive Order 12333 says data will be collected using procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community and approved by the Attorney General. Section 8083 No money can go towards transferring the MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone out of the Army's control is an upgrade to the Predator drone and has been able to fire Hellfire missiles since 2010 Section 8097 No funds can go towards a contract with a company that forces its employees to resolve sexual assault or other disputes through arbitration. This goes for their subcontractors too. Section 8098 No money can go to ACORN. Section 8109 No money can go towards the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other prisoner held in Guantanamo Bay. Section 8110 No money can go towards transferring a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay to their home country - or any other country- unless the Defense Secretary tells Congress 30 days prior. Notice must confirm that the government of receiving country: Is not a "state sponsor of terrorism" Has agreed to make sure the person can't threaten the United States in the future Will give any information about this person to the United States when requested Exceptions It's ordered to be done by a court or tribunal A pre-trial agreement has been made in a military commissions case before this bill became law The Secretary will take "alternative actions" (which are undefined) The transfer is in the U.S. national security interests Section 8111 No money can be used to construct or modify a prison inside the United States for the purpose of housing Guantanamo Bay detainees Upgrades can be made to Guantanamo Bay Section 8112 No money can be used to enter into a contract with a corporation with unpaid Federal taxes… unless the "agency" says it's cool. Section 8113 No money can be used to enter into a contract with corporation that's been convicted of a felony… unless the "agency" says it's cool. Section 8118 "The Secretary of the Air Force shall obligate and expend funds previously appropriated for the procurement of RQ-4B Global Hawk and C-27J Spartan aircraft for the purposes for which such funds were originally appropriated." RQ-4B Global Hawks overfunded compared to request by $107 million C-27J Spartan: Budget request $0, given $137,863,000 Section 8119 The next warship will be named after Senator Ted Stevens Section 8120 No funds can be used to retire the C-23 Sherpa aircraft. The C-27J aircraft, funded in section 8118, was selected to replace the C-23 Sherpa in 2007. Budget request: $0, given $10,300,000 to retain 8 planes, down from 23 in 2008 Title IX—Overseas contingency operations (Global War on Terror) $87 B: Total funding $5 B: Training Afghanistani soldiers $325 M: Afghanistan infrastructure $10 M: Inspector General Section 9007 No money can "establish" a military installation for the purpose of a permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq. No money can be used to exercise U.S. control over any oil resource in Iraq No money can be used to "establish" any military installation for permanent stationing in Afghanistan Section 9012 $508 M: Security assistance teams, life support, transportation, personal security, facilities renovation, and construction. Section 9014 No money can go to Pakistan unless they: Cooperate in the US in counter terror efforts against Al Qaeda and others Do not interfere in Afghanistan Dismantle IED netowrks Prevent the spread of nuclear information and material Issue visa's quickly to United State's officials working on counter terrorism Give humanitarian organizations access to their prisoners The Defense Secretary can waive these requirements & can submit the reasons in classified form DIVISION D—HOMELAND SECURITY (TOTAL FUNDING: $47 B) Title I—Departmental management and operations $1 B: Total funding Title II—Security, enforcement, and investigations U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration $15.5 B: Total funding Border Patrol Must maintain at least 21,370 full time agents $515 M available for drones & marine vessels Immigration $5.4 B: Total funding Must maintain at least 34,000 detention beds $2.7 B: For detention and deportations TSA (Transportation Security Administration) $7 B: Total funding $4 B: Screening operations $1 B: Federal air marshals Staffing limited to 46,000 employees 9 months after passage, procedures for a Known Crewmember pilot program need to be submitted to Congress Coast Guard $10 B: Total funding Includes $1.4 B for retiree benefits Secret Service $1.6 B: Total funding Title III—Protection, preparedness, response, and recovery Infrastructure Protection & Information Security $1.1 B: Funding available until September 30, 2014 Federal Protective Service Funded by user fees Must have at least 1,371 staffers, 1,007 police officers/special agents Office of Biometric Identity $232 M: Total funding program fingerprints and photographs every non-US citizen who enters the country. Federal, state, and local officers have access to the data The program is supposed to "collect biometrics" from non-U.S. citizens at their gates Accenture is the at the time they were first given the contract, was registered in Bermuda - a tax haven country. It's now headquartered in Ireland- known for their low corporate tax rate- even though it's operational headquarters are in Chicago and NYC. Office of Health Affairs $133 M: BioWatch Created after the 2001 anthrax attacks and announced in Bush's 2003 State of the Union (1:36:50 on CSPAN) Sensors in EPA air filters designed to detect airborne pathogens in Philadelphia, NYC, DC, San Diego, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, Houston, and Los Angeles. The system is designed to alert the Centers for Disease Control and the FBI of any significant dangers Has and no evacuations have ever been ordered or medicines distributed due to a positive reading on this system Has already cost $1 B, an upgrade would cost $3.1 B; they've begun the between three contractors FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) $3.5 B: FEMA operations $7 B: Disaster relief fund National Flood Insurance Fund $171 M that will be funded by insurance premiums Salaries, flood mitigation efforts, and flood insurance operations, flood plain mapping Funding caps: $132 M cap on operating expenses $120 M cap on flood mitigation efforts $1 B + cap on commissions and taxes of agents National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund $25 M available until expended Emergency Food and Shelter $120 M available until expended Title IV—Research and development, training, and services United States Citizenship and Immigration Services $112 M: E-Verify program Internet system that checks to make sure an employee is legally allowed to work in the United States Title V—General provisions Section 516 No Circular A-76 competitions allowed for services provided by immigration officers, contact representatives, and investigative assistants Section 522 No money can go towards reorganizing the Department of Homeland Security Section 525 Extends authority of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out prototype projects related to weapons or weapons systems that may be bought or created by the Department of Defense Section 529 No money can go towards reducing staff at the Coast Guard Section 530 No money can go toward preventing a non-seller from bringing prescription drugs that are less than a 90 day supply Section 533 No money can go towards planning, testing, or developing a national identification card Section 534 The TSA Administrator can except certain airports from using the E-Verify program as long as they tell Congress that no security risks will result Section 538 Can't transfer Khalid Sheik Mohammad or any other detainee out of Guantanamo Bay Section 539 No first class travel for DHS employees Section 540 DHS employees can't be punished for using protective equipment like respirators, gloves, etc. Section 544 6 months after bill signed, TSA must tell Congress if all air cargo is being screened, and if not, when it will be Section 545 In developing screening procedures, DHS Secretary will make sure the procedures "take into consideration such passengers' and crews' privacy and civil liberties consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance." Section 551 DHS can sell detention facilities as long as there are at least 34,000 beds available for immigrant detainees Section 554 No money for ACORN Section 558 $202 M: Establish a "Federal Network Security" program, which includes a "continuous monitoring and diagnostics program" The software can't give DHS any personally identifiable information or communications between employees of other agencies The software needs to be installed in accordance with privacy laws Exempted: Congress, Judicial Branch, Defense Department, CIA, and NSA Section 559 No porn allowed on government networks Section 567 No money can go towards creating a Public Advocate position within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Advocate: In NYC, acts as a "watchdog", speaks to government officials on behalf of the public

CD019: Continuing Resolution, Part 1

23 mars 2013 | 53 min

Part 1 of a two part series on the continuing resolution that will fund the government until the end of September. In this episode, we examine the funding for the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and science related appropriations. B = billion M = million DIVISION A: AGRICULTURE, FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION Totals Grand total of division: 139 B for 2013 ($137 B in 2012) ($144 B requested) Food and Drug Administration (FDA): $4 B in 2013 Food Stamps: $77 B for 2013 ($80 B in 2013) ($82 B requested) All domestic food programs: $105 B for 3013 ($106 B in 2012) ($109 B requested) Subject to 2.513% sequester cut TITLE I - Agricultural Programs Extension Activities People eligible for taxpayer food: States, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, the Northern Marianas, and American Samoa Food Safety & Inspection Must have at least 148 inspectors Hazardous Waste Management: LIMITED to $5 M for site investigations and cleanup expenses TITLE II- Conservation Programs $831 M: water & soil conservation including water management to prevent floods Title III—Rural Development Programs Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account $2 B limit: Loans for construction or purchase of fossil fuel burning electric plants that use carbon sequestration systems. TITLE IV—Domestic Food Programs Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) $7 B available until September 30, 2014 Commodity Assistance Program $1.3 M yearly until 2023: Planting and agricultural maintenance programs for Marshall islands because our nuclear test '' exposed them to radiation in 1954. TITLE V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Food for Peace Program $1.5 B grants available until whenever TITLE VI—Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration Food and Drug Administration $887 M for food safety inspectors TITLE VII—General provisions Section 721 Prohibits funding the salaries or expenses of people to carry out the "The is to extend the service life of the dams and bring them into compliance with applicable safety and performance standards, or to decommission the dams so they no longer pose a threat to life and property." Section 725 Prohibits funding for the salary or expenses of a person who prepares or submits language into the President's budget proposal that assumes revenues or money from fees that have not been passed into law. The person would be paid if they submit, along with the revenue language, a corresponding cut that would go into effect if the suggested revenue is not enacted by the time the 2014 Appropriations conference begins. Section 732 No money can go towards a contract with a corporation that has been convicted of a felony in the previous 2 years, unless the contract officer says it's not necessary to protect the government. Section 733 No money can go towards a contract that hasn't paid all their Federal taxes, unless the agency says it's not necessary to protect the government. Section 735 Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act prohibits regulated plant "pests", like weeds, that are somehow considered harmful if allowed to be freely grown in the United States. Anyone is allowed to petition to have a plant removed from the regulated list. If the Secretary of Agriculture chooses to regulate a plant that was previously unregulated, this bill says the Secretary "shall" "immediately grant temporary permits" which will authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, or commercialization, while the petition is evaluated. Section 736 No money will be allowed to pay for "mitigation" associated with on the White Salmon River in Washington state on October 26, 2011. "Mitigation" according to FEMA: "Mitigation is the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. Mitigation is taking action now- before the next disaster- to reduce human and financial consequences later… Without mitigation actions, we jeopardize our safety, financial security, and self-reliance." Section 742 Prohibits any money from going towards implementing proposed and some existing regulations in the poultry market. Regulations prohibited: Terms eliminated "Tournament system": Methods used by poultry dealers to calculate the payment rate to poultry farmers by comparing one one farmer's performance with another's. "Additional capital investment": $25,000 or more paid by the poultry or pig farmer beyond his initial investment for expanding facilities. "Competitive injury": When conduct distorts competition in the marketplace "Likelihood of competitive injury": When their's reason to believe a competitive injury is likely to occur. Examples: When a dealer kills competition through large-scale exclusive dealings When a poultry/pig dealer raises competitor's costs When a dealer lowers amounts paid to the farmers below market value When a dealer impairs a farmer's ability to compete with other farmers When a dealer impairs a farmer's ability to get their full payment from their sales in the marketplace Applicability of Regulations (these people would be exempted) Poultry dealers - buy and sell the poultry from farmers List of actions that would not be allowed by regulation Being deceitful in poultry market contracts Retaliatory actions -including intimidation or disadvantage- by a dealer against a farmer in response to anything said or written by that farmer A refusal to give farmer the statistical information & data used to determine the compensation paid to him by the dealer An action or attempt to limit a farmer's rights in a contract, including: Right to a trial by jury (arbitration ok if voluntarily agreed to) Right to damages Rights to attorney fees awards Right to fair trial location Paying a premium or applying a discount on the payment to a pig farmer without documenting the reason and cost justification Ending a contract with a poultry/pig farmer for no reason other than an allegation of wrong doing. The violation must be reported to the authorities for it to be grounds for termination. A business practice designed to mislead farmers A contract that causes a competitive injury Eliminated Rules Packers and dealers would have to submit a copy of their contracts to the Grain Inspection, Packers, & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) within 10 days. Packers, purchasers, and dealers would have to tell GIPSA when their contracts are dead. The contracts would be available to the public on the internet. Trade secrets, confidential business information, & personal information would not be made public. Confidential business information of packers and dealers would have to be given to GIPSA. Tournament System: All farmers growing the same type and kind of poultry would have to paid at the same rate. There would be a minimum required payment. A dealer would have to notify the farmer of the cancellation of an order 90 days in advance. DIVISION B— COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE TITLE I—Department of Commerce Subject to 1.877% sequester cut International Trade Administration $483 M: Promoting American corporations abroad NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $3 B: Total funding $926 M: National Weather Service $1.8 B: Weather Satellite Systems, money spent between GOES-R (weather forecasting) and JPSS (replacement of dying satellites) projects $10.8 B estimated total cost : $11.9 B estimated total cost Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery $65 M available until September 30, 2014: salmon conservation in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, , California, and Alaska. States must match 33% of the Federal funds. Section 109 Orders monthly reports to Congress on the reason for all official travel to China by Commerce department employees. TITLE II—Department of Justice FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigations $8 B: Total funding ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives $1 B: Total funding No money can go towards paying the salary or expenses of a government employee who works on implementing regulations that limit importation of "curios or relics" Original firearms that are over 50 years old Museum quality collector's items Bizarre, rare, or historical firearms No money will be allowed to implement a law requiring a physical inventory of any firearms manufacturer, dealer, or importer. Federal Prison System $6.8 B: Total funding Office on Violence Against Women $416 M: Total funding Juvenile Justice Programs $280 M: Total funding Section 202 No funds can pay for an abortion, unless the life of the mother is endangered If this is declared unconstitutional, this will be null and void Section 203 No funds can be used to force someone to perform or help someone get an abortion Section 204 An individual can refuse to do so, but the the prisons must provide "escort services" to a female inmate to an outside clinic where she can get an abortion. Section 209 No funds can be used to purchase recreational electronics for inmates Funds can be used to purchase electronics for inmate training, religious, or education programs. Section 212 No funds can be used to plan, implement, or finish a public-private contract competition for work performed by government prison employees Competitions would create detailed comparisons of the costs associated with either a private prison contract or a public prison contract Section 217: Response to Fast & the Furious No money can go towards giving firearms to members of drug cartels unless law enforcement personnel continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times TITLE III—Science NASA $18 B: Total funding $4 B: Space exploration $4 B: Space operations $5 B: Science National Science Foundation $6 B: Total funding Provides 20% of Federal research done in colleges & universities TITLE IV—Related agencies TITLE V—General provisions Section 501 No money can go towards "publicity or propaganda" Section 505 No more than $500,000 or 10% (whichever is less) can go towards privatizing functions currently performed by the government… unless Congress is notified Section 509 No money can go towards promoting tobacco products or to try to get a foreign country to loosen their regulations on the marketing of tobacco, unless the restrictions are unfairly applied. Section 516 No money can be used to buy information technology unless the FBI, or other appropriate agency, has assessed the risks of cyber-spying or sabotage, especially if parts of the system are produced by China. Section 517 No one is allowed to torture. Section 528 No money can go towards first class air travel, unless no coach fares are available or when a disability demands it Section 530 No money can be used to transfer or release Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or anyone else who has been held since June 24, 2009 in Guantanamo Bay Section 531 No money can be used to prepare a facility in the United States for the detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Upgrades can be made to Guantanamo Bay Section 532 No money can go to Section 533 Funds should go towards energy star light bulbs Section 535 NASA is not allowed to work with China or a Chinese owned company unless specifically authorized to do so in a future law. Exception if there is no risk of transfer of national security or economic security data, if the Chinese person has no involvement in civil rights abuses, and if NASA submits a written explanation to Congress. Section 536 No funds can go towards moving the census from the Department of Commerce to the Executive Office of the President Section 538 No funds can be used to pay the salaries of a person who denies or fails to act on a application to import a shotgun if the law was followed and the same model shotgun had not been denied importation prior to January 1, 2011. Ban was implemented because military shotguns including semi-automatics were being imported. Ban only allowed shotguns that were suitable for sporting purposes. Section 539 No funds can be used to create or maintain a computer network that doesn't have pornography blockers installed, unless the network is used for criminal investigations Section 540 No money can go towards a contract with a corporation convicted of a felony in the previous two year, unless the agency says that this isn't necessary to protect the government. Section 541 No money can go towards a corporation with unpaid Federal taxes, unless the agency says this is unnecessary to protect the government. Section 543 No money can go towards the political science program at the National Science Foundation, except for research projects that promote national security or the economic interests of the United States. Previous studies have been on collective bargaining, campaigns, elections, electoral choice, our electoral system, citizen involvement in democracy, lobbying, partisanship, etc… Next week: Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, Department of Homeland Security, and all other parts of government that will be continued at the 2012 funding levels.

CD018: The Ryan Budget

16 mars 2013 | 52 min

Low-lights of the Ryan budget are described after we run down the bills passed by the House this week. We also look into an eighteen-year emergency continued this week by President Obama. The banks currently have to send out a notice regarding their privacy policies every year. This bill would change the law so the banks only have to send the privacy notices out when they change their privacy policies. The privacy policies will be posted online. This bill extends the the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, which is welfare, through the end of this calendar year. The bill also prohibits the Obama administration from following through with a plan to give states waivers which would allow them to operate their own welfare programs, so long as there is a proven 20% increase in the number of welfare recipients who find work. This bill would effectively make sure the Federal government has a one-size-fits all approach to welfare. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="159"] Grandma Foxx of North Carolina sponsored the SKILLS Act[/caption] Would be effective for fiscal year 2014 Most significant effect: It would change the make up of local boards that decide how our taxpayer money would be spent on welfare-to-work and job training programs. The local boards would effectively be in corporate control. Currently: The boards are already required to be a majority of people from the business community, specifically business owners. This bill would change it so that a 2/3 majority of the boards would be business owners. Also, the seat for representatives from labor organizations would be eliminated. The boards are required to come up with a plan for the states on how they run their work programs, including how the state will spend taxpayer money. The boards would also be able to award government funded contracts to the entities that provide training services. It would effectively allow businesses to tell states how to govern. It also prohibits the government job training centers from competing with private employment agencies. The bill would also consolidate 35 different programs into one giant program. The bill would order an accounting of the number of federal workers who administer job training programs and within one year, fire all the federal workers whose positions were gobbled up in the merge. President Obama and the Senate Democrats have already said they don't support it; it won't become law. Ignored Subpoenas Ted Poe (TX) informed Congress that he intends to ignore a subpoena sent by Orly Taitz, a lawyer from Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. Orly Taitz is part of the Defend our Freedoms Foundation and her website proclaims to be the "". Taitz filed a temporary restraining order to prohibit President Obama's inauguration because they claim that he's using a fake social security number and his birth certificate is forged. US Attorney's filed an opposition on behalf of Congress to stop Taitz's restraining order. Now she's sending subpoena's to members of Congress to try to get them to say they didn't support the US Attorney's effort to squash her restraining order against the President. Ted Poe's response: "After consultation with the Office of Gen-eral Counsel, I have determined under Rule VIII that the subpoena seeks information that is not ‘‘material and relevant'' and that it is not ‘‘consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.'' Accordingly, I intend to move to quash the subpoena. God and Texas, TED POE" Another subpoena was ignored this week by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The subpoena was issued for a criminal trial being prosecuted by the US District Court for the District of Arizona. The stated reason the subpoena was ignored was because the "documents sought are not material and relevant" and that subpoena is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the House." No more information could be found. National Emergencies Act automatically ends a National Emergency after 90 days unless the President informs Congress that the emergency needs to continue. President Clinton signed an that puts sanctions on Iran's nationalized oil industry. The sanctions prohibit any United States citizen or company from entering into a contract to develop Iran's oil resources, either by physically managing the development or financing it. President Clinton after Iran opened their petroleum resources to foreign investment, allowing our corporations to get their invested money back, but not take home profits. Obama Emergency Notification sent to Congress on March 12, 2013: "The actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United St ates in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have deter-mined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to deal with this threat." Taxes * Change the tax structure from seven brackets to two. The rate for poor people would be 10% * Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax * Lower the top tax rate to 25% for individuals and corporations Education * Remove regulations in higher education to allow more online classes * Freezes cap on Pell grants for college at $5,645 per year (currently $5,500) * "Eliminate ineffective & duplicative federal education programs. Health Care * Repeal ObamaCare bit by bit * Repeal the Federal expansion of Medicaid (100% paid by Fed gov't, down to 90% in 2016) * Repeal the health-care exchanges * Repeal the entire health-care law. * Want to make sure that "not a penny goes toward implementing the new law." * Ban on denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions would remain illegal. * Choice program that would allow workers to devote their employer's health-coverage contribution to purchase a health plan that works for them.. if their employer allows it. Medicare * For people born in 1959 or later, Medicare would be privatized. You would have to choose between private plans or a fee for service, go bankrupt if you get really sick, plan. Taxpayer money in the form of a voucher would pay for the private insurance for people whose savings has been drained. * Medicare would have exchanges, just like the ones that would be defunded for the rest of us. * Seniors would get gov't money only for the "second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service" plan, whichever costs less. If the senior wants a better plan, they pay the difference out of pocket. Prohibiting Lawsuits * Limits on noneconomic and punitive damages in medical liability lawsuits. Retirement * Make federal workers pay more towards their pensions so that their benefits come closer to sucking as much as the private sector * "The CBO estimated that, on average, federal employees make 16% more in total compensation than their private-sector counterparts. This reform would begin to rectify that imbalance." Federal Workforce Cuts * Reduce the federal workforce by 10% by 2015. * Reduce the federal workforce "not through layoffs, but via a gradual, sensible attrition policy." Energy * Defund renewable projects; "The budget aims to roll back federal interventional and corporate-welfare spending across energy sectors." * Open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling * Sell off "millions of acres federal land" to oil & gas companies. "The federal government owns nearly one-third of the land in the country… substantial volumes of oil and gas are known to lie under these government lands." * Prohibit the government from buying land. Right now, proceeds from land sales need to go towards buying other parcels of land. The Ryan budget would take 70% of that and put it towards deficit reduction. * "The sale of billions of dollars' worth of federal assets would… remove economic distortions by reducing public ownership." * Limit the amount of money the Department of Interior could collect from the fire sale to $60 million per year. Transportation * Eliminate funding for high-speed rail projects * "High speed rail and other new intercity rail projects should be pursued only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial services" Defense * $560.2 billion for 2014, $6 trillion over the next decade = spending increases. * "It is approximately $500 billion more than will be available absent changes in the Budget Control Act. Our security is the federal government's top priority. The budget must reflect that fact."

CD017: VAWA & Funding Defense

9 mars 2013 | 64 min

We take a close look at the Violence Against Women Act re-authorization as the President signs it into law. We also look at the continuing resolution passed by the House, which funds defense while leaving the rest of the government in chaos. Was signed by the President! This one is law. President Obama signs VAWA on March 7, 2013 Definition Changes Adds stalking and date rape to the list of offenses. Includes cyber stalking in the definition of stalking. Replaces "spouses" with "parties' Indian Affairs Adds "sex trafficking" and "stalking" to eligible grant programs for Indian women Allows Indian tribes to have jurisdiction over domestic violence crimes unless neither the victim or defendant are Indians. Includes D.C., Indian tribes, and Puerto Rico in the grant funding (decreases funding) Immigrants Allows children to stay in U.S. on their victimized parent's U Visa even if they turn 21 while the VISA is pending New Programs Grants for training programs for law enforcement and medical personnel Funding for pro-bono legal assistance for victims Protects the confidentiality of child victims of domestic violence or sexual assault Protects students from violence stemming from their immigrant status and gender identity Grants for elder abuse training; Defines "elder" as someone over the age of 50 Prevents victims from being evicted from public housing because they were involved in a domestic violence incident, however, the violent person can be evicted. Public housing authorities will need to transfer victims to new housing if their safety is at risk and they request the transfer. Orders an audit of unprocessed DNA evidence for sexual assault crimes that haven't passed the statute of limitations. Program ends 12/31/18. Prohibits any lobbying activity in relation to DNA audit grants and prohibits violators from receiving a grant for at least 5 years. 6 months after President Obama signs the bill, DHS has to publish final standards for the punishment of sexual assault in immigrant prisons, including private prisons. Prevents marriage brokers from providing information on minors Penalty Changes Penalty for assault with intent to murder is limited to 20 years and a fine Penalty for assault by attempted suffocation limited to 10 years and a fine… suffocation is regardless of intent or visible injury Report Comptroller General of the United States will issue a report to Congress in two years on the use of foreign labor contractors by U.S. employers. It will include the role of labor recruiters that provide low-wage foreigners to companies, the effectiveness of current regulators enforcement of laws already on the books, describe the jobs the foreigners are doing and how many of them are here, and identify abuses of foreigners including use of fees and debts. Funding Deletes ‘‘non- profit, non-governmental victim services or-ganizations,'' or "non-profit, private" programs and replaces it with ‘‘victim service providers, staff from population specific organizations,' in a couple of sections; but not all. Prohibits grants from going to non-profits with offshore tax havens Prohibits more than $20,000 of grant money from going towards conferences Vast majority of funding going DOWN Human Trafficking Title 12: Secretary of State will establish a fund (amount unknown) to give to foreign governments to prevent human trafficking. Orders them to come up with a strategy and suggest ways for oversight; very broad. Qualifying gov'ts need to have high prevalence of trafficking and a "demonstrated political motivation" to address it. Funding can be terminated if State determines the country is doing things contrary to our national interest or doesn't "adhere to it's responsibilities" under the agreement. Issues four grants up to $2 million each for combatting sex trafficking of minors. One of the grants needs to go to a small state with less than 5 million people. Most of the money needs to go towards residential care of minor victims of sex trafficking. Overhead can't exceed 3%. Recipients need to match the grant for every year they get the gov't money and their match percentage goes up every year the grant is renewed, topping out at 50% on their third year. Program good for four years. Decreases funding by half, from 20 to 10 million for law enforcement grants for trafficking. Increases funding for victims in other countries from 12.5 million to 14.5 million/year Right now, we are in the middle of two crisis': The sequester is one, an unfunded government that would have to shut down on March 27th is the other. This bill does nothing to solve the sequester. In fact, it expressly keeps it in place. Two of the 12 appropriations categories are funded until the end of the year in the responsible appropriations way in this bill. The other 10 are funded as a continuing resolution, that keeps the funding at old chaotic levels. The House did real work on the Defense appropriations; the Senate is going to change everything on the domestic side as this bill has a real chance of becoming law. In the defense section of the bill, I looked at what items were dramatically over-funded in comparison to what was requested by President Obama and the military. Fighter Jets Boeing would be given $605 million more than was requested for 11 new airplanes. Boeing/Northrup are the electronic warfare version of the Boeing F/A-18E/F. They would be given $45 million for 15 new aircraft. Budget request from the military for this item: $0. $0 request, given $45 million for 15 new aircraft Ships/Submarines General Dynamics would be given $778 million more than requested. These submarines are built in two locations, which makes the submarines more expensive but the program is designed to keep both shipyards in operation. Location #1: General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, CT. The Representative in Groton, CT is Joe Courtney; his are General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman. Location #2: Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company. The Representative in Newport News, VA is Rob Wittman; he is on the Armed Services Committee & his is Northrup Grumman. --- Northrup Grumman would be constructed at Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, VA for $263 million. Budget request for this item: $0. The Representative in Newport News, VA is Rob Wittman; he sits on the Armed Services Committee and his is Northrup Grumman. --- would be ordered for $1 billion. No one requested this ship. DDG-51 Destroyers are built in either Bath, ME by General Dynamic's Bath Iron Works or in Newport News, VA by Huntington Ingalls Industries (formerly Northrup Grumman). Lockheed is the lead contractor for the DDG-51 combat system Lockheed Martin [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="525"] C-130 Bad-ass Cargo Plane[/caption] Lockheed Martin military transport planes would be given $180 million. Budget request: $0. --- Lockheed Martin would be given $130 million more than requested for 2 additional planes. --- Lockheed would be given $126 million more than requested for 2 extra planes. --- Lockheed also given $126 million more than requested for 2 extra planes. --- C-130 planes are manufactured in Marietta, GA and that it's "the longest continuously operating aircraft production line in history." The Representative in Marietta, GA is Phil Gingrey. Phil Gingrey's . --- , manufactured by an Italian company but whose engines and systems are produced by Lockheed Martin, would be given $138 million. Budget request: $0. Drones Northrup Grumman would be given $107 million more than requested in order to increase the fleet to 21 drones. Pentagon was unimpressed with the RQ-4 Global Hawk's performance after deploying them to Japan after the earthquake/tsunami and after they were used in Libya. March 2012: they will put the 14 Global Hawks they already have into storage, and 4 under construction would go directing into the "bone-yard" Northrup to block the cuts. Global Hawk's are produced in Palmdale, CA. The Representative for that district is Buck McKeon, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Buck McKeon's : Lockheed Martin General Dynamics Northrup Grumman General Atomics Boeing [caption id="" align="alignright" width="327"] MQ-9 Reaper Predator Drone[/caption] --- General Atomics would be given $155 million more than requested so the Air Force can order twelve more. Then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force about the predator drones: "We've moved from using UAVs primarily in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance roles before Operation Iraqi Freedom, to a true hunter-killer role with the Reaper." Missile Defense Systems Raytheon's would be given $300 million more than requested to increase the program. --- would be over-funded by $189 million to buy 17 additional Raytheon SM-3 interceptors, which are ship-based missile interceptors designed to shoot down short & intermediate range ballistic missiles and have been used to shoot down satellites. Israel [caption id="" align="alignright" width="360"] Emanuel Yellin[/caption] Israel's would be given $211 million. Budget request: $0. Iron Dome manufactured by a Israel-owned defense technology company, but U.S. is trying to get a co-production deal like they have on their other missile defense system which is co-produced by Boeing are the "other" missile defense programs partnered with Boeing. David's sling is a third missile defense system for Israel that partners with Raytheon. The Upper Tier/Arrow and David's Sling missile programs together were given $169 million more than requested. Total in unrequested money given to Israel for missile defense: $380 million. Miscellaneous Appropriations which "aims to develop a system to deliver a precision conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour" overfunded by $90 million. --- , which is supposed to funnel Department of Defense contracts to small businesses was given $250 million. Budget Request: $0. --- $5+ billion for the Afghanistan security forces (all of it requested). --- "Miscellaneous equipment" would be given to every branch of the military. Total = $1.5 billion. None of these funds were requested. Creepy Spy Sh*t Camp Williams in Utah - location of the was given $191,414,000 (all of it requested). Total Classified Programs: $31,309,229,000 = $900 million more than was requested. Good News Over-funded medical research by $635 million. Things that will be studied include: substance abuse alzheimers autism breast cancer gulf war illness lung cancer MS ovarian cancer prostate cancer traumatic brain injuries vision AIDS prevention Net totals appropriated to Defense: $622 billion was spent in 2012 $597 billion requested for 2013 $598 billion given in this bill … More than requested

CD016: They Want Cuts

1 mars 2013 | 33 min

No one really tried to avert the sequester, the House of Representatives travels in style, and something good actually happened this week in Congress. Sequester Here is a rundown of what kind of effort each division of Congress put forth to try to avert the sequester. Senate Democrats offered Freezes the sequester, keeping the budget the same for 2013. Lowers the spending caps from the Budget Control Act, totaling $39 billion in future spending (not a cut) Eliminates direct payments to farmers for peanuts, sugarcane, and sugar beets Protects other agricultural programs by making them mandatory spending, extending their funding, or exempting them from sequestration. Increases taxes on earnings over $1,000,000 to 30% starting in 2014 Eliminates tax deductions for business expenses relating to moving a business out of the United States Defines bitumen products (tar sands) as oil so that it can be taxed as oil This bill failed to pass the Senate; Republicans don't like it. Senate Republicans offered Gives the President until March 15th to create a sequester replacement plan Caps defense cuts at $42.7 billion Prohibits amendments to the the President's bill when it comes up for a vote in Congress Enacts the President's cuts if there is no Congressional vote of disapproval This bill failed to pass the Senate; Senators were uncomfortable giving the President the authority to do Congress' job. House Democrats wanted to vote on Cancels the 2013 sequester Repeals a 2% sequester cut to veteran's medical care Eliminates direct payments to farmers for wheat, corn, barley, oats, cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, and peanuts. Eliminates tax deductions for oil and natural gas companies Increases taxes on earnings over $1,000,000 to 30% starting in 2014. The House Republicans leadership wouldn't allow this bill to come up for a vote. House Republicans... did nothing. House Committee Travel Report, Oct 1 - Dec 31 2012 Examples of airfare we paid to send our Representatives on trips: $15,037 to send Todd Platts (R-PA) to India/Afghanistan for 4 days. Orbitz: $6,800 $19,743 to send Steven Pearce (R-NM) to Egypt/England for 4 days. Orbitz: $3,400 We paid similar costs per person for him to bring along 3 staff members. $8,023 to send Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on a weekend trip to Germany. Staff member on same trip flew for $1,821. $10,200 each for Robert Wittman (R-VA), Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam delegate) and two staff members to spend 3 days in Taiwan and Japan. Orbitz: $1,900 per person. $13,575 for Bill Flores (R-TX) to go on the same trip on the same days $21,063 to fly Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to Afghanistan for a day. Orbitz: $8,800. Military transportation: Free. Total spent on House of Representatives travel in 3 months: $855,743.25 Good News: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Passes Congress ... Despite an attempt by House Republicans to eliminate protections for lesbians, immigrants, Native Americans, and college students.

CD014: Marching Towards Sequester

16 februari 2013 | 34 min

Hydropower and veterans get some love from the House this week, while churches get taxpayer money and Federal workers get screwed… again. * Fast Tracks licensing for hydro-power generation on existing dams. * Passed with 0 No votes. * Only 3% of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. currently generate electricity Federal grants will be awarded to States to streamline State requirements and procedures for veterans who were military emergency medical technicians while serving in the Armed Forces to meet certification, licensing, and other requirements applicable to becoming an emergency medical technician in their State. The State must show they have a shortage of emergency medical technicians to be eligible for the money. Funding: $1,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.'' $5,000 per state, per year. and have shortages of emergency medical personnel; in fact, many of our emergency services are volunteer. Re-categorizes houses of worship, regardless of which religion, as public buildings on par with community centers, museums, homeless shelters, etc. in order to allow churches, synagogues, and other religious buildings access to cash grants to repair, restore, or rebuild buildings used for a primarily religious purpose. Problems: Direct government funding of religious buildings is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Supreme Court ruling on State grants for maintaining religious schools: "If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair." Religious buildings are not available for use by the general public. Prayer and worship are not essential government functions. Bill never went through committee process. No amendments were allowed. Religious buildings have access to FEMA money and SBA loans Religions don't pay taxes. Passed the House, with 72 voting No. The 72 were an interesting mix of liberal and Tea Party Congressmen. Eliminates the pay increase that was promised to Federal workers via an Obama Executive order because they have been given no cost of living adjustment in 2 years. Freezes Congressional pay until December, even though it's already frozen through October because of the They spent two days on this bill even though the sequester takes effect March 1. JIM MCGOVERN (MA) "The Republicans are going to go on vacation tomorrow. We're not going to be back for a week, and then we'll have 4 legislative days left to deal with this thing called ‘‘sequestration.'' On March 1, all of these across-the-board cuts go into play. And guess what? We're going to lose at least 750,000 jobs. That's not my estimate. That's what the head of OMB says. There will be 750,000 Americans unemployed because of their inaction. Guess what? What are these people going to do? They're going to have to look for employment. They're going to be without work. It's going to slow down our economic growth. Give me a break. There should be some urgency here." range from 750,000 at the low end and over 2 million at the high end. ROB WOODALL (GA) Here we are at midnight on sequestration day, saying, Hey, let's do it. Folks, let's do it. Let's do it. Back in May, we passed a bill here. Let's do it with the bill we passed in August to solve the fiscal cliff. Let's do it with the one we passed in September. Let's do it with the one we passed in December. What did the House's sequester-solving bills do? Reduced food funding Defunded health insurance exchanges Repealed the part of Wall Street reform that provides for the orderly break up of criminal banks Eliminated the program that lets homeowners renegotiate their mortgage rates Limited medical injury lawsuits Put a $250,000 cap on punitive damages (a cap the jury would be prohibited by law from knowing about) Deleted all defense cuts from the sequester How might the sequester be avoided? Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has a bill that the House leadershiop won't allow a vote on. The Senate: An agreement made that will allow votes on sequester replacement bills - one from D's, one from R's - on Monday or Tuesday, Fed 25 or 26, after their vacation. Department of Defense Excess Weapons Going to States Defense Property Disposal Service established in 1972. Responsible for disposal and sale of surplus and excess defense equipment and supplies. Half of their extra goodies go to the foreign military sales program. Operates in 16 countries with field offices in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait appropriated $250 million per year for equipment ("excess defense articles") in Afghanistan, but there are no caps in 2013 and 2014. Other half of the extra military gear is available to other government agencies. (Section 1072) broadened the categories of sate and local organizations that would be eligible for surplus military equipment to include state and local law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, and EMS. 2011: State police forces were given . on military gear that is being transferred to States. Since 9/11 - total grants given to police to buy military equipment have totaled $34 billion - passed in 1878, limits the powers of the Federal government in using federal military to enforce State laws.

CD013: Surveillance, Stupidity, & Drones

8 februari 2013 | 34 min

The House passes a surveillance bill masked as pediatric research and then wastes our time. Also, highlights from the leaked legal justification for the Obama Administration's "lawful" drone bombing of American citizens. Introduced by Democrat Lois Capps of Northern California. The bill says the Director of the National Institutes of Health (a gov't agency) can create a network of up to 20 groups of public or private non-profits to work together to do pediatric research. As a condition of accepting an award, the groups need to agree to help the Centers for Disease Control with the establishing patient registries and "other surveillance systems as appropriate and upon request by the Director of the Centers." The bill establishes a "Data Coordinating Center" to... 1. Distribute scientific findings 2. Help design and conduct research projects and to manage the resulting data 3. "To organize and conduct multi-site monitoring activities" But the bill doesn't give the NIH any money to do this. NIH already supports many research networks that support research and training focused on pediatric health care needs and operates data coordinating centers for those networks. Those networks perform essentially the same activities as the groups described in the bill. The existing networks are not helping the CDC to establish surveillance systems. ...CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 225 would have "no effect on the number" of research groups or data coordinating centers that NIH would support. "CBO expects that CDC would request assistance from a few networks to establish surveillance systems." The President generally begins working on a budget in Nov/Dec The fiscal cliff deal wasn't done until January 2 meaning we didn't know how much revenue the United States would be collecting until then. President Obama will be submitting his budget late. Require a PLAN Act requires the President to give Congress another budget if the President's budget for fiscal year 2014 is not balanced. Not later than April 1, 2013, the President shall submit to Congress an addition to his budget that includes— * An estimate of the earliest fiscal year in which the additional budget will eliminate the deficit (Ryan budget was around 2030) * A detailed description of additional policies to be implemented in order to achieve such result (would have to be extreme measures) * An evaluation of what agency functions can be eliminated or consolidated. (Fleming Amendment) * An explanation of the differences between the President's original budget for fiscal year 2014 and the extra budget referred to in this subsection. * An estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit for each year until the budget is balanced. (Messer Amendment) Republicans seem to believe that creating a budget is an Executive Branch responsibility. "It is astounding that the President has shirked his responsibility to submit a budget on time for 4 of the last 5 years." - Rep. Roger Williams (TX) It isn't. "The fact of the matter is it is our responsibility. Not a nickel can be spent in America unless the Congress authorizes it to be spent. The President can't spend money on his own. Not a nickel can be raised in this country, of revenue, without the Congress acting on it. The President can't do that. It is the Congress of the United States, under article I, that has this responsibility. We're not taking that responsibility. We're trying to shove it off on somebody else, in this case, the President of the United States." - Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) What's really happening is the House is wasting almost all of February and to let the sequester crisis come down to the last minute. A deal needs to be done by Friday, March 1. Republicans are trying to re-write history and pretend President Obama created the sequester. "To add to the uncertainty, the President's proposed sequestration is set to take effect this March…." -Rep. Austin Scott (GA) "President Obama's sequester is an important issue." -Rep. Tom Price (GA) "What we should do is replace the President's sequester with responsible reforms that will help balance the budget in 10 years." -Rep John Boehner (OH), Speaker of the House Reality: In 2011, the GOP was refusing to raise the debt ceiling. In order to pay our bills, the President and Senate had to promise the GOP House that they would get $2 trillion in government cuts. $1 trillion in cuts were in the . The second trillion was supposed to be decided on by the SuperCommittee. The sequester was the painful-for-everyone-so-it'll-never-happen penalty that was supposed to bring everyone to the bargaining table. "We put sequester in place thinking it was so irrational and would have such a negative effect that clearly we would address the matter in the last 14 months. We didn't…. It was a silly bill. The Senate passed it and the President signed it because it was the only way we could make sure that we did not put the creditworthiness of the United States at risk." -Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) Now, Republicans are actually considering letting the sequester happen! "I, for one, felt that the delay in the sequester on January 1 was not in the country's best interest. These were the cuts that the Congress promised to the American people. When the debt limit was raised in August of 2011, this was the promise that was made, and it was a promise that was made by the President. It was pro-posed by people within the administration. The bill was signed into law by the President... Every line in every appropriations bill has a constituency somewhere that cares deeply about that language being retained. So, when all else fails, an across-the-board cut may be the only way that you can ever achieve that spending restraint." Rep. Michael Burgess (TX) The House will be in session for only 8 days before the sequester takes effect. Highlights (or lowlights, if you prefer)... "Sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida." "A targeted killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qa'ida or its associated forces would be lawful under U.S. and international law." Three conditions must be met: # 1: "An informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determine that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." But... "The condition that an operational leader preset an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." "A decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of al-Qa'ida are continually plotting attacks…the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur." #2: Capture must be "infeasible". "Capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." #3: The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. (Necessity, distinction proportionality, and humanity) "There is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict- such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs- as long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war." What about due process guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution? "In these circumstances, the "realities" of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from and imminent attack are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a U.S. citizen before using lethal force." How is this justified? "Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida under international law." The memo specifically names the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2001, signed in the days following 9/11. Doesn't targeting a certain person for death count as an assassination? "It is a lawful act of self defense." "A lawful killing in self defense is not an assassination." But Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son (who was never considered associated with al-Qa'ida) were in Yemen . Wasn't the Authorization for Military Force for hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan? "The United States is currently in a non-international armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces… Any U.S. operation would be part of this non-international armed conflict, even if it were to take place away from the zone of active hostilities." "The AUMF itself does not set forth an express geographic limitation on the use of fore it authorizes." This sounds unconstitutional. Maybe the courts should decide this? "The Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutionals considerations."

CD011: No Budget, Still Get Paid

26 januari 2013 | 54 min

Lobbyist Jo Ann Emerson quits Congress early, the House votes to temporarily suspend the debt ceiling and probably-not postpone their own paychecks, and the Brineys drunkenly ramble on a Friday night. Jo Ann Emerson Resigns from the House Said she was leaving Congress in February, left early (Tuesday, January 22) Used to represent the 8th district of Missouri; left to become President and CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a trade association/lobbying group. It has about 900 member utilities that serve 42 million people in 47 states and own almost half of the US power grid. Replacing Glenn English (also a former Congressman) who made $9,294,207 in his 6 years = $1.5 million a year. Won her district in 2012 with over 65% of the votes. Missouri to pay about $1 million for a special election Passed the House Tuesday, January 22. It now moves into the Senate. Gives 6 months for the Secretary to create a plan for responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Orders the disaster plan to specifically address the needs of at-risk individuals and children Cuts funding for training emergency response volunteers in half, from $22 million/year to $11million/year Government wants a "national biosurveillance system for human health, with international connectivity" that allows for "two-way information flow" between government and health care providers. Loosens the definition of "emergency" to include "threat justifying emergency authorized use". Allows the use of an unapproved medical devices or products if declared necessary by the government. Allows the government to extend the expiration date of medical products and "authorize the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce" if doing so protects the public health or military preparedness and effectiveness. Allows the government to waive "requirements regarding current good manufacturing practice otherwise applicable to the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of products." Allows $1.4 billion of taxpayer money to be spent on private research and development costs. The debt ceiling will be suspended from the day the President signs this bill until May 18, 2013. By April 15, 2013, the House and Senate need to each pass their own version of a budget for fiscal year 2014.* If one of the branches of Congress does not pass a budget, their salaries will be set aside in an account and they will be paid either when a budget is passed or on the last day of the 113th Congress. This means that the House could pass the Paul Ryan ‘screw the poor’ budget and the Senate could pass a budget giving private jets to homeless people and both parts of Congress would be paid. There is no need for a conference to merge the two budget bills to send a real budget to the President.

CD010: House (Finally!) Votes On Sandy Aid

19 januari 2013 | 50 min

Before the House (finally) agreed to give recovery money to Hurricane Sandy victims, they made new rules for the 113th Congress, including more private jets for themselves and less rights for gays. Then, despite Republican efforts to short them, the House finally voted to give Hurricane Sandy victims the $60 billion they asked for... Well, sort of. Changed the Nepotism rule to include grandchildren. Allows members to take private jets using official funds. Starts to open the door to using campaign funds (which Senate members can do) but a statute still prohibits that from members of the House. Eliminates a portion of ObamaCare that prevents the House from repealing authority for IPAB. Enacts the Ryan budget until a budget for 2014 is adopted. Prohibits lobbyists from trolling the Congressional gym. Authorizes the continuation of the "Fast and Furious" investigation. Authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (the five members are John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Eric Cantor as House Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy as Majority Whip, and Steny Hoyer as Minority Whip) to direct the House Office of General Counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act -the gay marriage ban- to "protect the interests of the House." HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY October 29, 2012: Hurricane Sandy hits the Northeast, devastating the coastlines of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut and causing widespread damage to the surrounding states. December 2012: The Senate passed a $60 billion aid package and sent it to the House of Representatives. January 2, 2012: After voting on the on the last day of the 112th Congress, Speaker Boehner had promised a vote on the Senate's Sandy bill. He lied. There was no vote. The bill died when the 112th Congress adjourned. January 4, 2012: The House passed , a piece of the dead Senate bill which authorized FEMA to borrow about $9.5 billion to make payments to victims insured through the National Flood Insurance Program. January 15th, 2012: The House passed HR 152, a bill which, after being heavily amended by a Republican congressman from New Jersey, finally authorized the remaining $50.5 billion requested by the states damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The original bill, written by Hal Rogers of Kentucky, gave the Northeast $17 billion, which was $33 billion short of what was requested. An amendment by Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey gave the Northeast states the rest of the money. TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $6 million from Rogers (Kentucky) bill + $218 million from Frelinghuysen (New Jersey) amendment to be spent on: Food for victims of Hurricane Sandy Floodplain protection Forest Restoration Money to help farmers from drought TITLE II (Completely replaced by Frelinghuysen amendment) ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS $20 million $50 million for a study of flood risks to coastal populations affected by Hurricane Sandy (due 2 years after bill is signed). $9 million $3.461 billion for repairs to projects that were under construction and damaged by Hurricane Sandy. $7.42 million $8.21 million to dredge navigation channels damaged by Hurricane Sandy. $500 million $1 billion for emergency operations and repairs. TITLE III (Completely replaced by Frelinghuysen amendment) SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION $10 million $20 million for grants to organizations helping with disaster recovery, response, and long term recovery to small businesses damaged by Hurricane Sandy. $1 million $5 million to the Inspector General to perform oversight on the grants. $100 million $520 million for direct loans for disaster recovery. $50 million $260 million for "direct administration expenses" of loan making TITLE IV DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - COAST GUARD $144 million $274 million for expenses caused by Hurricane Sandy FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY - DISASTER RELIEF FUND $5.4 billion $11.5 billion for national disaster relief (not limited to Hurricane Sandy). SCIENCE AND RESEARCH $585,000 $3.2 million available until September 30, 2013 2014 TITLE V DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR $50 million $78 million for construction expenses of the Fish and Wildlife Service $234 million $348 million for construction by the National Park Service TITLE VI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY FUND $100 million (Rogers of Kentucky bill) + $800 million (Frelinghuysen of New Jersey amendment) for the Head Start program and the costs of repairing and rebuilding health care facilities, child care centers, or other social services facilities. The money is only available to victims of Hurricane Sandy. TITLE VII $24.2 million, available until September 30, 2017, for construction by the Army National Guard. "...such funds may be obligated to carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law." "CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS" $207 million, available until September 30, 2017 for renovations and repairs as a consequence of Hurricane Sandy. "...such funds may be obligated and expended to carry out planning and design and major medical facility construction not otherwise authorized by law." (Added by the Frelinghuysen of New Jersey amendment) Money that must be spent on "operations and maintenance" expenses caused by Hurricane Sandy by September 30, 2013: $40 million for the Navy $8.5 million for the Air Force $5.8 million for the Air National Guard $5.3 million for the Army + $1.3 million to buy ammunition $3.1 million for the National Guard and $24.2 million for "Defense Working Capital Funds"... whatever that means. Department of Defense will be getting $348 million from the Sandy relief bill. TITLE VIII (Completely replaced by Frelinghuysen amendment) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION - FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT $14.6 million $30 million available until September 30, 2013 for expenses due to Hurricane Sandy FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION $2.022 billion for an emergency fund for the repair of highways, roads, and trails, in any part of the United States, including Indian reservations, that have suffered serious damage as a result of a natural disaster. No more than $100 million can be spent on any single disaster. The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Mariana Islands can not be given more than $20 million. The Secretary of Transportation is allowed to spend up to $500 million on Hurricane Sandy repairs. AMTRAK $32 million $86 million for expenses related to Hurricane Sandy. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM $5.4 billion $10.9 billion for repairs to the public transportation system most affected by Hurricane Sandy. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT $3.85 billion $16 billion for disaster relief, long-term recovery, and repairs to infrastructure and housing damaged due to Hurricane Sandy and other disasters in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Funds will go directly to the state or local government. TITLE IV... Doesn't appear to exist. TITLE X NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) $140,000,000 available until September 30, 2014, which includes: $50 million for mapping and charting of debris from Hurricane Sandy $50 million for weather and ocean research programs $25 million to improve weather forecasting $7 million to repair/replace ocean monitoring equipment damaged by Sandy $5 million to fisheries damaged by Hurricane Sandy $3 million to states for their own damage assessments $186,000,000 available until September 30, 2015, which includes: $111 million to get the polar weather satellites $44.5 million to repair and upgrade hurricane reconnaissance airplanes $13 million to speed up NWS ground readiness (Rep. Broun of Georgia tried to remove this one) $9 million to repair NOAA facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy $8.5 million to improve weather forecasting equipment and supercomputers TITLE XI (Added by Rep. Bishop of Utah) Prevents the Federal government from buying any land with Sandy relief money.

CD009: What’s In the Fiscal Cliff Bill

5 januari 2013 | 50 min

The back story on the "fiscal cliff" debacle, the House's sad excuse for a compromise, and the contents of the fiscal cliff bill that became law on 1/3/13. ‘‘American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012'' TITLE I—GENERAL TAXES SEC. 101. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF MOST 2001 BUSH TAX CUTS People making over $400,000 as individuals, or $450,000 as a couple, will be taxed at 39.6% instead of the current 35% Estate tax rate will be raised to 40% from 35%. No taxes on the first $5 million of inheritance. SEC. 102. INCREASE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES TO 20%, FROM 15% SEC. 103. EXTENSION OF 2009 STIMULUS BILL TAX CREDITS 5 year extension of Total credit cannot exceed $2,500 Tax credit decreases for families with gross incomes of $80,000 or $160,000 for a married couple. 5 year extension of the Eligible families receive $1,000 tax credit per child under age 17. Tax credit decreases for families with gross incomes of $75,000, or $110,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return. TITLE II—INDIVIDUAL TAXES SEC. 201. TAXPAYER DONATION TO SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPPLIES. SEC. 203. BOSS-PAID PARKING AND TRANSIT FARE WILL NOT COUNT AS INCOME TITLE III— SEC. 301. TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE COMPANY RESEARCH SEC. 306. TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE RAILROAD MAINTENANCE. SEC. 307. TAX CREDIT FOR PRIVATE MINING COMPANIES' SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING SEC. 312. TAX CREDIT TO PRIVATE ENTERTAINMENT RACETRACKS (NASCAR) SEC. 317. TAX CREDIT FOR HOLLYWOOD MOVIE STUDIOS. SEC. 318. TAX CREDIT FOR RUM PRODUCERS IN PUERTO RICO. SEC. 322. TAX LOOPHOLE FOR MULTINATIONAL BANKS AND MANUFACTURERS. Multinationals, including banks since 1997, don't have to pay taxes on money they earn through overseas subsidiaries. JP Morgan Chase, General Electric, Caterpiller paid for the legislation SEC. 323. MULTINATIONALS WILL NOT PAY TAXES ON INCOME EARNED FROM THEIR SMALLER BUSINESSES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES SEC. 328. USE TAX-FREE 9/11 RECOVERY BONDS TO BUILD MANHATTAN OFFICES AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS Goldman Sachs used this to get for its new headquarters. Lloyd Blankfein met with President Obama in December SEC. 330. TAX CREDIT FOR STARKIST AS THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN AMERICAN SAMOA. SEC. 331. TAX CREDIT FOR BUSINESSES BUYING SMALLER BUSINESSES () TITLE IV—ENERGY TAXES SEC. 401. TAX CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT EXISTING HOMES. SEC. 403. TAX CREDIT FOR 2- OR 3- WHEELED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES. 10% of the purchase price or $2,500. Must go at least 45mph SEC. 404. TAX CREDIT FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCERS. SEC. 405. TAX CREDIT FOR BIO-DIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL. SEC. 406. TAX CREDIT FOR INDIAN COAL FACILITIES. SEC. 407. TAX CREDIT FOR WIND FACILITIES SEC. 408. TAX CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT NEW HOMES. SEC. 409. TAX CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT APPLIANCES. TITLE V—UNEMPLOYMENT SEC. 501. FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE PAID SEC. 503. TAX CREDIT FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES TITLE VI—MEDICARE AND OTHER HEALTH EXTENSIONS SEC. 601. NO PAYMENT CUT TO MEDICARE DOCTORS SEC. 642. REPEAL OF "CLASS" LONG-TERM HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. SEC. 643. COMMISSION ON LONG-TERM CARE. TITLE VII—EXTENSION OF AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF FARM BILL UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2013 SEC. 802. NO PAY RAISE FOR CONGRESS TITLE IX—BUDGET PROVISIONS SEC. 901. TWO MONTH DELAY ON SEQUESTER CUTS TO GOVERNMENT Cuts must be ordered on March 1, 2013 and implemented on March 27, 2013. OFFICIAL TITLE: "Spending Reduction Act of 2012''. TITLE I—AGRICULTURE SEC. 101: REDUCE FOOD FUNDING TO PUERTO RICO AND AMERICAN SAMOA 8 MONTHS EARLY. TITLE II- COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE SEC. 201. DEFUND HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES. 'Health Insurance Exchange' is a website designed so consumers can easily compare and buy their own health insurance. SEC. 202. REPEAL PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND. TITLE III- FINANCIAL SERVICES SEC. 311. REPEAL THE PART OF WALL STREET REFORM THAT BREAKS UP CRIMINAL BANKS. SEC. 321-324. "HAMP Termination Act of 2012" HAMP is the program designed to help homeowners renegotiate their mortgage rates with the banks. SEC. 331. LET CONGRESS FUND THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill to be the first government agency to protect consumers from getting screwed by their banks. The CFPB has guaranteed funding because it gets its money from the Federal Reserve. Congress would gain the ability to defund the CFPB if this bill were law. TITLE IV—COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SEC. 402. 3 YEAR TIME LIMIT ON MEDICAL INJURY LAWSUITS. "In no event" can a health care lawsuit begin 3 years after the date the patient gets injured or 1 year after the patient discovers the injury, whichever occurs first, unless Lawsuits by a child under 6 years old must begin within 3 years of the injury or before the child's 8th birthday, whichever is a longer period. SEC. 403. $250,000 CAP ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS. "The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages." SEC. 405. $250,000 CAP ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS. A patient who has been told that they may not seek punitive damages can only be heard in court if they first prove that they will win their case. MAXIMUM AWARD: $250,000 or as much as two times the amount of economic damages awarded, whichever is greater. Protects health care/drug manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers from paying punitive damages. "The jury shall not be informed of this limitation." SEC. 409. ALLOW STATES TO FURTHER PROTECT HEALTH CARE COMPANIES FROM LAWSUITS This bill can not over-ride "any State or Federal law that imposes greater procedural or substantive protections for health care providers and health care organizations from liability, loss, or damages." TITLE VI—COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS SEC. 621. PROVIDE LESS MONEY TO STATES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES. TITLE VII—SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT SEC. 706. DELETE ALL DEFENSE CUTS FROM THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT

CD008: NDAA for 2013

25 december 2012 | 61 min

Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013; highlights include lots of money for other countries, a continuation of indefinite detention, Christmas gifts given to Northrup Grumman and other campaign contributors, and rules will finally apply to defense contracting. All that and more in this summary of 2013's NDAA… The Bad Money to Other Countries - (Section 222) $211 million to Israel for IRON SHEILD, their missile defense system - (Section 1211) $508 million for Iraq. - (Section 1219) $350 million for infrastructure in Afghanistan. - (Section 1222) $250 million for equipment ("excess defense articles") in Afghanistan, no caps in 2013 and 2014. - (Section 1227) Authorizes up to $1.2 billion in payments to Pakistan, but they get no money for time when they close supply routes into Afghanistan to the US military. Pakistan also needs to hunt al Qaeda and try to stop IEDs to get money. All limitations can be waived if the Defense Secretary says in writing that they need to be. - (Section 1203) Gives Defense Secretary authority to use $75 million for equipment, supplies, training, and minor military construction in Yemen to fight al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliates and another $75 million for the same thing in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. - (Section 1010) Continuation of drug war in Columbia. No amount given. Drones - (Section 527) REPORT: due in 6 months, reasons drone operators have "persistently lower average education, training, and promotion rates" and how to improve those rates. Nuclear Weapons - (Section 211) Requirement that next-generation aircraft be able to transport and use nuclear weapons within 2 years of the aircraft's completion. Indefinite Detention Rep. Jerold Nadler of Colorado: As a Nation, no matter what adversity we have faced we have done so as Americans. We have united behind the values and freedoms that gave birth to this Nation and that have made it a moral force in the world. In the last decade, however, we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by bit, with each new Executive order, each new court decision, and yes, each new act of Congress. We have begun giving away our right to privacy, our right to our day in court when the government harms us, and with this legislation we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law. The conference report states that: Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws. This language simply continues the flawed policies established in the 2011 defense authorization bill. First, it applies only to ‘‘any person inside the United States.'' That is important, but most of the debate on indefinite detention without charge and on the lack of due process has to do with people held by our government outside our borders—including, potentially, U.S. citizens. The language in this bill, combined with the prohibitions against moving these detainees into the United States, guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely without charge—contrary to our traditions of due process and civil rights. Second, this text continues the claimed authority of the United States Government to hold even U.S. persons captured on United States soil indefinitely and without charge. Some people may take comfort in the provision that states that those of us entitled to certain rights prior to the passage of the AUMF and of last year's defense authorization bill continue to have the same rights afterwards. But this bill does not say who among us are fortunate enough to have those rights, nor does it tell us what those rights might be. It does not specify how the executive branch is to determine which of us are entitled to these constitutional protections and which of us are not. And it does not provide us with recourse if the President gets it wrong. The Exact Text "SEC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED. Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the avail-ability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court or-dained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws." - (Section 1022) Prohibits updating U.S. facilities to house Guantanamo detainees, except at Guantanamo. - (Section 1027) Prohibits the transfer of prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay. - (Section 1025) Orders the Defense Secretary to tell Congress when it plans to ). Must tell Congress 10 days before the transfer. Parwan is a building built next door to Bagram; it's essentially the same place People were tortured there during the Bush administration at Bagram. Detainees have no access to courts at Bagram as they do at Guantanamo. Prisoners that have been held in both jails said that Bagram was worse. More people than Guantanamo (1,700 as of June 2011). This number has doubled during the Obama administration. In March, US started transferring hundreds of Afghani prisoners to Afghanistan authority but recently stopped. We are holding on to non-Afghani and a few Afghani prisoners because we're afraid that Afghanistan and/or the prisoner's home country will not detain them indefinitely like we will. - (Section 1024) Orders the Defense Secretary to tell Congress within 30 days when it detains a person on a ship. Future Wars Iran "SEC. 1233. SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN. It is the sense of Congress that the United States should be prepared to take all nec-essary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neigh-bors with a nuclear weapon. SEC. 1234. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran." - (Section 1244) More sanctions against Iran's national oil companies because "Iran's energy, shipping, and ship-building sectors and Iran's ports are facili-tating the Government of Iran's nuclear pro-liferation activities by providing revenue to support proliferation activities." In 4 months, all transactions involving Iran's oil, shipping, or ship-building sectors will be prohibited. Specifically, goods used in connection with the National Iranian Oil Company, National Iranian Tanker Company, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines ( - Can be waived if these goods are going to help with reconstruction in Afghanistan. Doesn't apply to the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas. Sanctions on materials such as graphite, aluminum, steel, coal, and industrial software. Sanctions on anyone who insures the sanctioned companies. North Korea - (Section 1046) REPORT: In 4 months, a report on "the feasibility and strategic value of deploying additional conventional and nuclear forces to the Western Pacific region to ensure the presence of a robust conventional and nuclear capability, including a forward-deployed nuclear capability, of the United States in response to the ballistic missile and nuclear weapons developments of North Korea and the other belligerent actions North Korea has made against allies of the United States" China - (Section 1045) REPORT: By August 15, 2013, DoD needs to give Congress a report on "the underground tunnel network used by the People's Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels" and an assessment of their nuclear capabilities. Total for National Defense: $648,676,712,000, which is more than was requested. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts: "I would like to insert into the RECORD an article that appeared in to-day's in which he quotes Secretary of Defense Panetta in a speech. He said that the committees here in the Con-gress ‘‘had diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need.'' That is from the Secretary of Defense." which are long range drones manufactured by Northrup Grumman. The Pentagon had decided to risk terminating this version of Global Hawk (there are others in use and being built) and noted that it would save $800 million in fiscal 2013 and $2.5 billion over the next five years. It's a sole-source contract with Northrop and its team of subcontractors as the only contenders. The scale is worldwide. lists the Global Hawk's suppliers along with the names of their representatives in Congress. Manufactured by General Dynamics "The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking toward a new global strategy, wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishing work on the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the vehicle from top to bottom. The flat bottom design makes these tanks especially vulnerable to improvised explosive devices. ", as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states." General Dynamics is the , Jim Jordan Since the start of 2001, General Dynamics’ political action committee and the company’s employees have given at least to the current members of the four key defense committees General Dynamics spent at least The Good Regulations For Contractors Oversight - (Section 843) Establishment of a chain of authority for contractors. Within one year, DoD needs to identify a chain of authority, a policy on what functions contractors are appropriate for, how the contractors will coordinate with DoD officials, and how contractors will be supervised. - (Section 832) Defense Contract Audit Agency will be able to look at contractor internal audits to determine to what extent they'll be allowed to police themselves. - (Section 851) Database on contractor performance. - (Section 844) REPORTS: DoD needs to collect information on the number of active contracts, the value of those contracts, if the contracts were competitively bid, the number of people working under each contract, how many contractors are performing security functions, and the total number of contractors killed. - (Section 941) Contractors must report to the DoD when their system has been hacked. - (Section 4805) Make contractor performance evaluations public Mission Appropriateness of Contractors - (Section 846) No later than 6 months after the planning begins for a combat operation, a risk assessment needs to be done on the operational and political risks of using contractors for critical functions. - The risk assessment can be skipped if the operation is "not expected to continue for more than one year" and the contracts are expected to be less than $250 million. Subcontracting Rules - (Section 802) 6 months, regulation that says if a contractor intends to subcontract more than 70% of the work, the contracting officer needs to consider just directly contracting with the subcontractor and explaining in writing the reason for his decision. Profit-Control - (Section 811) Cost-type contracts will be prohibited at DoD starting on October 1, 2014. - (Section 831) Training for acquisition managers on determining reasonableness of prices - (Section 804) REPORT: Change guidelines, within 6 months, on contractor profits to "ensure an appropriate link between contractor profit and contractor performance." - (Section 864) REPORT: Effect of prohibiting payment of contractor salaries that are more than we pay the President of the United States ($400,000) Funding - (Section 803) Contract funding (Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund) = $500 million in 2013, $800 million in 2014, $700 million in 2015, $600 million in 2016, $500 million in 2017 Misc. Good Things Firefighters - (Section 1803) Federal grants to firefighters between $1-$9 million each depending on the size of the population served. Active Troops - (Section 601) 1.7% pay raise for service members effective January 1 - (Section 622) Authorizes a space-available travel program for armed service members If Secretary decides to do it, he has one year to decide the rules. - (Section 523) Sex offenders no longer allowed to enlist in the military - (Section 954) Gives authority to Defense Secretary to create a National Language Service Corps of nongovernmental people who can be called up to help the DoD with foreign language services. Veteran Benefits - (Section 541) Authorizes a Troops to Teachers program: Eligible military retirees can become teachers in low income neighborhoods with teacher shortages Eligibility: must have completed at least 6 years of active duty and sign a reserve commitment for 3 years. Must have a bachelor's degree or higher. Bonus: Capped at $5,000 for regular school, $10,000 high need school, which they need to pay back if they don't finish their 3 years. $15 million cap on entire program - (Section 729) Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to start a national outreach program to societies, community organizations, non-profit organizations, and other government agencies to give mental health care to veterans part time, for free.

CD006: A Shortened Week in Congress

7 december 2012 | 35 min

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson quits Congress to become a lobbying titan, the Coast Guard is funded, Louie Gohmert votes for 'lunatic', GOP confuses net neutrality, and a crisis is engineered during a short week in Congress. - Represents southeast Missouri: - Leaving Congress in February to become President and CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a trade association/lobbying group. - It has about 900 member utilities that serve and own almost half of the US power grid. - Replacing Glenn English (also a former Congressman) who made = $1.5 million a year. - A key accomplishment: weakening climate bills on behalf of coal-dependent electric cooperatives. - We have to pay for a special election to replace her in Congress. - Good news: we got rid of a gay hater in Congress. - Already passed the Senate. - Gives Coast Guard about $10 billion total. - Orders a risk assessment (due 6 months after bill becomes law) for transporting Canadian tar sands by sea which will detail: How much barge, tanker, and supertanker traffic may increase. Whether transportation of tar sands through the Salish Sea will bring it through U.S. waters. A list of rules and regulations that restrict super-tanker traffic in U.S. waters and "an assessment of whether there are methods to bypass those rules." A list of rules and regulations that restrict the amount of oil transported in tankers and how to get around those rules too. Whether tar sands oil has different properties from other oils. A risk assessment of increasing tar sands traffic. "The potential costs and benefits to the U.S. public and the private sector of transporting Canadian tar sands by sea. - The bill also includes this: SEC. 701. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available during fiscal year 2013 or 2014 for the Coast Guard may be obligated or expended for the production or purchase of any alternative fuel if the cost of producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost of producing or purchasing a traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose as the alternative fuel. - Creates a website detailing the crime rates of cruise lines. - Lifetime protection is only for Presidents who served before 1997. - Would otherwise only be protected for 10 years. - Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)(Telecommunications Industry mole) - Commitment to unregulated internet. - Attacks FCC net neutrality rules. - "“Only a crisis- actual or perceived- produces real change." - Milton Friedman - House only worked 3 days this week. - House has cancelled work next Friday. They will only work Tuesday-Thursday at 3:00pm. - Eric Cantor warned members to plan to work the week of December 17th, even though they were supposed to be done by the 14th.

CD005: Lame Ducks Return

1 december 2012 | 56 min

During another slow week in Congress, Jesse Jackson Jr. resigns, Nydia Velazquez (NY) ignores a subpoena, the Department of Homeland Security gets investigated, the Senate fights about filibusters, and the Trans-Pacific-Partnership is confirmed as real, secret, and scary. Bills Signed Into Law: - : Fast tracks Rockaways gas pipeline for Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (Transco) - : Prohibits airlines from participating in EU cap & trade program. - Hasn't been seen since June and didn't campaign but still won his seat - Is under investigation for allegedly trying to buy Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat in 2008. - No information available on the court case she is involved in or why she is ignoring the subpoena. - Represents Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan, Queens. - Has been serving for 20 years - (she's on the financial services committee) - Got the vast majority of her 2012 money from large individual donors (rich people) and secret PACs (almost half a million) - Voted for bailouts and against auditing the Fed : Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Accountability Act- passed the House 11/27 - Independent panel to do an assessment of DHS because its creation was and remains high risk. - DHS was a creation of the Bush administration in 2002 - 22 agencies were merged = dysfunctional government - FEMA - issued huge contracts with little to no oversight after Katrina. - TSA - hundreds of employees have been arrested for thefts. - Immigration & Border Patrol- employees arrested for accepting bribes. - Federal protective service - short staffed and not performing their duties sufficiently. - Senate also passed : tells DHS to keep financial records for an audit next year STEM Jobs Act- passed the House 11/30 - Legislation backed by Apple, Oracle, Cisco, & Adobe - Makes it easier for foreign students graduating with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math to get visas - Limits the number of visas for regular families - Eliminates the diversity visa program that gives visas to people from more random countries - Won't be become law; Filibuster Change in Senate - Filibuster = Objection that postpones a bill from coming up for a vote. - One strategy is endless debate: Senate rules allow Senators to speak as long as they wish unless 60 Senators vote to shut them up (cloture). - Another strategy is an individual Senator placing a hold; if 60 votes aren't there to over-ride the hold, the bill is blocked from a vote. - Changes to Senate rules can be done by a simple majority but only on the first day of the session in January. - Most likely change: the next Congress might require the blocker to stay on the floor and defend their objection. - 1960's: No Congress had more than 7, 2000's: Avg over 100 in each of the last 3 Congresses - A trade deal being crafted in secret with the cooperation of 600 corporations. - Will manage 40% of all global trade (). - Congressional representatives have been denied access to TPP negotiations and documents. - (Dec. 3-12) in Auckland, New Zealand

CD004: Screw You E.U. & Give Me My Inhaler

17 november 2012 | 22 min

During a slow week in the House of Representatives, inhalers are given relief, airlines are forced to ignore a European carbon law, and trade with Russia is "normalized." *Mistake in CD003: Pete Sessions, not Jeff Sessions. * was bill signed into law during recess. - Asthma Inhalers Relief Act of 2012 (Sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess / Energy and Commerce Committee) : Epinephrine CFC Metered-dose Inhalers - Questions and Answers Epinephrine CFC metered-dose inhalers used to treat asthma (known as Primatene Mist or Epinephrine Mist) cannot be made or sold in the United States after December 31, 2011. 4. What other inhalers can I use for my asthma? There are inhalers that contain other medicines that can treat asthma, such as albuterol HFA inhalers. Hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) are different propellants (spray) than CFCs. You will need a doctor’s prescription to buy these. 10. Why are over-the-counter epinephrine CFC inhalers being phased out? Manufacturers use chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, as propellants (spray) in these inhalers to move the medicine out of the inhaler so patients can breathe the medicine into their lungs. The United States signed an international agreement, called the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer4 along with many other countries. These countries promised to make it illegal to make or sell substances that decrease the ozone layer, including CFCs, after certain dates. 12. Is it safe for epinephrine users to "purchase sufficient” amounts of Primatene Mist to use following the phase out date of December 31, 2011? Epinephrine users can use the product after December 31 because the product phase-out only applies to the manufacture and sale of the product after December 31. If you haven’t used up your Primatene Mist by Dec. 31, 2011, it’s safe to continue using it as long as it hasn’t expired. (a) In General- The Environmental Protection Agency -- (1) shall allow for the distribution, sale, and consumption in the United States of remaining inventories of CFC epinephrine over-the-counter inhalers. (2) shall not take any enforcement action or otherwise seek to restrict the distribution, sale, or consumption of such inhalers on the basis of any Federal law implementing the Montreal Protocol. (3) shall give any company who sells these over-the-counter inhalers a No Action Assurance Letter stating that the Environmental Protection Agency will not bust you prior to August 1, 2013. S. 1956 - European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 (Sponsored by Sen. John Thune / Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) November 12, 2012: The European Union announced they are postponing the imposition of the Emissions Trading Scheme until 2014, making this bill unnecessary. The bill prohibits airlines from complying with European law, preventing them from paying taxes on carbon emissions the European Union MIGHT enact in 2014. Henry Waxman (CA) If we bar the airlines from complying, they will incur steep pen-alties estimated at over $20 billion by 2020. The Thune bill then says the gov-ernment is going to have to hold the airlines harmless from this cost. That means that taxpayers may be on the hook for over $20 billion, although the bill also limits the use of appropriated funds. Or the hold harmless provision would force the Secretary to use exist-ing authority to require European air-lines to pay the fees to compensate the U.S. airlines. Rather than doing something con-structive about global warming, we are going to ignite a trade war with the Europeans. Has now passed both Houses of Congress and is on its way to the President's desk. H.R. 6156 - Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, Rules Committee Print (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Dave Camp / Ways and Means Committee / Foreign Affairs Committee) A free trade bill with Russia, that does nothing for Russia; it opens the 142 million person market to multi-national corporations. The bill also prohibits certain Russian murderers from getting U.S. visas and freezes any bank accounts they may hold in the United States. Passed the House, now moves into the Senate.

CD003: The Free Market vs. US

11 november 2012 | 73 min

This episode is a history of free market policies implemented around the world for the last fifty years. The Basics Corporatist system: Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security. Chicago School Theory -advanced by Milton Friedman: The starting premise is that the free market is a perfect scientific system, on in which individuals, acting on their own self-interested desires, create the maximum benefits for all. It follows ineluctably that if something is wrong within a free-market economy- high inflation or soaring unemployment- it has to because the market is not truly free. There must be some interference, some distortion in the system. The Chicago solution is always the same: a stricter and more complete application of the fundamentals. The economic agenda of the neoconservative movement: First, governments must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of the accumulation of profits. Second, they should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit. Third, they should dramatically cut back funding of social programs. Specifics to watch for: Taxes, when they exist, should be low, and rich and poor should be taxed at the same flat rate. Corporations should be free to sell their products anywhere in the world, and governments should make no effort to protect local industries or local ownership. All prices, including the price of labor, should be determined by the market. There should be no minimum wage. Historical Evidence Free Market in Chile Chile before Chicago School infiltration: Strong social safety net Protections for national industry Trade barriers Controls on prices Chicago School infiltration: 1953: The Ford Foundation fundeda plan to send Chilean students to study economics at the University of Chicago on Chicago School fundamentals. Students returned to the Catholic University in Chile to teach in their Economics Department These students-turned-professors were called the "Chicago Boys". 1970 Elections: All parties wanted to nationalize the copper mines then controlled by U.S. mining corporations (the U.S. corporations had invested $1 billion over fifty years in the Chilean mining industry but had collected $7.2 billion in profit). Salvador Allende won the election. A group of U.S. mining companies and the Internatioal Telephone and Telegraph Company (ITT) (which owned 70% of Chile’s soon-to-be nationalized phone company) tried to collapse Chile’s economy. ITT prepared an eighteen point strategy for the Nixon administration that contained a clear call for a military coup. Meanwhile, a the Chicago boys and the CIA created “The Brick”, an economic program based on Milton Friedman’s free market ideas. Allende’s government was overthrown in a CIA backed coup who then installed Augusto Pinochet; Pinochet followed the Chicago Boy’s economic plan. Augusto Pinochet: Privatized some banks. Opened the borders to foreign imports. Cut government spending by 10 percent, except the military which got an increase. He eliminated price controls. A small clique of financiers known as the “piranhas” made a killing on speculation. People were pissed. Pinochet took to murder and torture to keep the population under control. Friedman told Pinochet it was not enough. He told him to cut government spending by 25 percent within six months across the board while adopting pro-business policies moving toward “complete free trade”. He knew that hundreds of thousands of people would be fired in the public sector. 1975: Pinochet cut public spending by 27 percent; by 1980, they had cut it in half. The results: Chile lost 177,000 jobs public sector jobs. Unemployment went from 3 to 20 percent. Public school was replaced by vouchers and charter schools. Heath care became pay-as–you-go Chile’s social security system was privatized. 1982: Chile's economy crashed. Debt exploded, unemployment hit 30 percent. 1988: 45 percent of the population had fallen below the poverty line. The richest 10 percent of Chileans, however, had seen their incomes increase by 83 percent. After 17 years, before Pinochet’s reign ended, the Chicago Boys Boys rigged the constitution and the courts so it was legally impossible to reverse their laws. Free Market in Indonesia 1965: Sukarno, the President of Indonesia, threw out the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which he accused of being facades for the interests of Western multinationals October 1965; General Suharto, backed by CIA, began the process of seizing power and destroying the left. CIA made a list of targets, the Pentagon hooked up Suharto’s guys with weapons and field radios, and names were crossed off until the left was physically gone. The Berkeley Mafia, a group of Indonisean economists educated at the University of California at Berkeley, had studied in the U.S. as part of a program that began in 1956 funded by the Ford Foundation. Suharto didn’t know anything about finance, so the Berkeley Mafia drafted his economic policy. The free market policies: Allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Indonesian resources. Handed out “tax holidays” to companies Indonesia’s natural wealth- copper, nickel, hardwood, rubber, and oil- was divided up among the largest mining and energy companies in the world. Suharto ruled for thirty years. During that time: Indonesia’s unemployment rate went from 4 to 12 percent. Nissan bought one of Indonesia’s largest car companies. Bechtel to built an oil refinery in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Indonesia’s waters systems were split between Britain’s Thames Water and France’s Lyonnaise des Eaux. Canada’s Westcoast Energy snapped up a huge Indonesian power plant project. Employment rates have still not reached pre-1997 levels in Indonesia. And it’s not just that workers who lost their jobs during the crisis never got them back. The layoffs have continued, with new foreign owners demanding ever-higher profits for their investments. Free Market in Argentina The Chicago Boys trained Argentinians in the magic of the free market. 1976: The Argentinian military junta staged a coup, supported fully by U.S. President Gerald Ford, chief-of-staff Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The top economic job went to Martinez de Hoz, a member of the cattle aristocracy and a board member of several multinational corporations, including ITT, who wanted to go back to the feudal economy of cheap labor. His new policies included laws which: Banned strikes and allowed employers to fire workers at will. Lifted restrictions on foreign ownership Sold off hundreds of state companies. Results for the people: Wages lost 40 percent of their value Meat prices were deregulated and cost went up 700 percent (companies brought in record profits). Factories closed Poverty skyrocketed 1982: Just before Argentina’s dictatorship collapsed, they announced that the state would pay the debts of large multinational and domestic companies. These companies continued to own their assets and profits, but the public had to pay off between $15 and $20 billion of their debts. The companies included Ford Motor Argentina, Chase Manhattan, Citibank, IBM, and Mercedes-Benz. 1992: Free market happens again. Carlos Menem ran on nationalist policies but put the guy who gave the corporate bailouts in charge of the economy. The new government quickly made cuts to public spending and launched another new currency, the Argentine peso, pegged to the U.S. dollar. Within a year, inflation was down to 17.5 percent and was virtually eliminated a few years later. 1994: The new government sold 90 percent of all state enterprises to private companies. Before making the sales, they had fired roughly 700,000 of the state workers. Argentina’s entire early-nineties economic program was written in secret by JP Morgan and Citibank, two of Argentina’s largest private creditors. Local factories could not compete with the cheap imports flooding the country. Half the country would eventually be pushed below the poverty line. Carlos Menem downsized and sold the oil fields, the phone system, the airline, the trains, the airport, the highways, the water system, the banks, the Buenos Aires zoo and eventually, the post office and the national pension plan. As the country’s wealth moved offshore, the lifestyles of Argentina’s politicians grew increasingly lavish. December 19, 2001: President Fernando de la Rua and his finance minister, Domingo Cavallo, tried to impose further IMF-prescribed austerity measures. The population revolted. De la Rua was forced to flee in a helicopter, but not before 21 protesters were killed by police Free Market in Uruguay 1973: Military coup. 1974: Professors from the University of Chicago reformed their tax system and commercial policy. Real wages dropped by 28 percent. Scavengers appeared on the streets of Montevideo for the first time. Free Market in China 1980: Deng government invited Milton Friedman to come to China and teach top-level civil servants, professors and party economists in the fundamentals of free-market theory. The party wanted to open the market the while maintaining its own grip on power; their plan ensured that once the assets of the state were auctioned off, party officials and their relatives would snap up the best deals and be first in line for the biggest profits. The model Chinese government intended to emulate Chile under Pinochet: free markets combined with authoritarian political control, enforced by iron-fisted repression. “Reform” = code for party officials turning into business tycoons, as many illegally took possession of the assets they had previously managed as bureaucrats. The state would protect its economic “reform” program by crushing demonstrators. May 20, 1989: The government of the People’s Republic of China declared martial law. June 3, 1989: The tanks of the people’s Liberation Army rolled into the protests, shooting indiscriminately into the crowds. The government reserved its harshest repression for the factory workers, who represented the most direct threat to deregulated capitalism. In the three years following the blood bath, China was cracked open to foreign investment. Turned China into the sweatshop of the world because they implemented low taxes and tariffs, had corruptible officials and, most of all, had a plentiful low-wage workforce that, for many years, would be too afraid to protest. Free Market in Bolivia During the Reagan years, Chicago School precepts about the supremacy of the free market had rapidly become the unquestioned orthodoxy in Ivy League economics departments. A backroom negotiation took place on August 6, 1985 during which Paz –the new president who had run as a nationalist- appointed a man known as Goni to head up a top-secret economic team charged with restructuring the economy. Paz’s party had no idea he had struck this backroom deal. Goni owned Comsur, the second-largest private mine in the country, soon to be the largest; as a young man, Goni had studied at the University of Chicago. Seventeen days later, they had created a textbook free market economic program. It included: Elimination of food subsidies. Canceling of almost all price controls. 300 percent hike in the price of oil. Froze government wages at already-low levels for a year. Called for deep cuts to government spending. Flung open Bolivia’s borders to unrestricted imports. Called for a downsizing of state companies, the precursor to privatization. Paz’s team insisted on bundling the entire revolution into a single executive decree; according to its authors, the entire program had to accepted or rejected; it couldn’t be amended. Within two years: Inflation was down to 10 percent Unemployment increased from 20 percent to 25 or 30 percent. Real wages were down 40 percent; at one point they would drop 70 percent. "A small elite grew far wealthier while large portions of what had been the working class were discarded from the economy altogether and turned into surplus people." Bolivia had brought in a Pinochet-style economic program, without a Pinochet, and under a center-left government. It was labeled “Voodoo politics”, but most people simply call it lying, and it was proven effective in implementing free market policies. The Crackdown: The country’s main labor federation, called a general strike that brought industry to a halt. Paz declared a “state of siege”: Army tanks rolled through the streets of the capital. The capital was placed under a strict curfew. To travel through their own country, Bolivian citizens now needed special passes. Riot police raided union halls, a university and a radio station, as well as several factories. Political assemblies and marches were forbidden. State permission was required to hold meetings. Oppositional politics was effectively banned- just as it had been under the dictatorship. Paz directed the police and military to round up the country’s top two hundred union leaders, load them on planes and fly them to remote jails in the Amazon. Ransom demand: The prisoners would be released only if the unions called off their protests, which they eventually agreed to do. One year later, it all happened again. Goni, then as president of Bolivia in the mid-nineties, sold off their national oil company, the national airline, railway, electricity and phone companies. The winners of Bolivia’s fire sale included Enron, Royal Dutch/Shell, Amoco Corp. and Citicorp. Goni’s privatizations sparked a series of “wars” in Bolivia: The "water war" was against Bechtel’s water contract that sent prices soaring 300 percent. The “tax war” was bagainst an IMF-prescribed plan to make up a budget shortfall by taxing the working poor. The “gas wars” were against his plans to export gas to the United States. In the end, Goni was forced to flee the presidential palace to live in the United States. Free Market in Poland 1988: The Communist government fell and Solidarity, the labor union party, won the election. Poland needed debt relief and some aid to get out of its financial crisis. The International Monetary Fund money was strictly conditional on Solidarity’s submitting to free market economics. Poland enlisted Jeffrey Sachs, a Harvard economist trained in free market economics. September 12, 1989, the Polish prime minister announced: Privatization of state industry. The creation of a stock exchange and capital markets. A convertible currency. Budget cuts. The Result: 30 percent reduction in industrial production in two years Unemployment skyrocketed, reaching 25 percent in some areas. Marked increase in strikes. In 2003, 59 percent of Poles had fallen below the line. Free Market in Russia In Russia: Communism was over and Russia had enormous wealth including huge oil fields, 30 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves, 20 percent of its nickel, weapons factories and a state media apparatus. 1991: G7 meeting told Mikhail Gorbachev must enact free market economic policies or he would be allowed to fail. He knew the policies would have to be enacted by force. Boris Yeltsin held the post of Russian president, and had a much lower profile than Gorbachev who headed all the Soviet Union. August 19, 1991: One month after the G7 summit, a group from the Communist old guard drove tanks up to the Russian parliament building and threatened to attack the country’s first elected parliament.Yeltsin stood on one of the tanks and denounced the aggression as “a cynical, right-wing coup attempt.” The tanks retreated and Boris Yeltsin emerged as democracy’s hero. December 1991: Four months after the aborted coup, Yeltsin formed an alliance with two other Soviet republics, a move that abruptly dissolved the Soviet Union, thereby forcing Grobachev’s resignation. Yeltsin enlisted Jeffrey Sachs, the same Harvard economist who had just “reformed” Bolivia and Poland. Sachs told Yeltsin he could raise something in the area of $15 billion. Late 1991: Yeltsin told parliament that if they gave him one year of special powers, under which he could issue laws by decree rather than bring them parliament for a vote, he would solve the economic crisis and give them back a thriving, healthy system. He was democracy’s hero. The answer was yes. He immediately assembled a team of economists, devoted fans of Milton Friedman that the Russian press took to calling “the Chicago Boys”. In just a month and a half, they wrote a comprehensive privatization plan. October 28, 1991, Yeltsin announced the plan: Lift price controls. Implement free-trade policies Privatize the country’s approximately 225,000 state-owned companies. The Results: Millions of middle class Russians had lost their life savings when money lost its value. Abrupt cuts to subsidies meant millions of workers had not been paid in months. The average Russian consumed 40 percent less in 1992 than 1991. A third of the population fell below the poverty line. March 1993: The parliamentarians told Yeltsin he was done. They took back his dictatorial powers. Yeltsin went on television and declared a state of emergency, which restored his powers. Russia’s independent Constitutional Court ruled 9-3 that Yeltsin’s power grab violated the constitution on eight counts. The West supported Yeltsin. Then President Bill Clinton said he was “genuinely committed to freedom and democracy, genuinely committed to reform,” Yeltsin issued a decree announcing that the constitution was abolished and parliament dissolved. Two days later, a special session of parliament voted 636-2 to impeach Yeltsin for this outrageous act. President Clinton continued to back Yeltsin and Congress voted to give him $2.5 billion in aid. Yeltsin abandoned negotiations and moved into war posture. Having just doubled military salaries, he had most of the army on his side. Yeltsin’s next move was to dissolve all city and regional councils in the country. October 4, 1993: Yeltsin ordered a reluctant army to storm the Russian White House and set it on fire. The day after Yeltsin dissolved parliament, his team started writing economic decrees. Yeltsin and his team did not allow foreign multinationals to buy up Russia’s assets directly; they kept the prizes for Russians. Then they opened up the newly privatized companies, owned by so-called oligarchs, to foreign shareholders. . “The oligarchs” moved enormous profits offshore at a rate of $2 billion a month Yetlsin won the next election thanks to $100 million in financing from the Russian oligarchs (33 times the legal amount). They then started selling off the commons: Forty percent of an oil company comparable in size to France’s Total was sold for $88 million (Total’s sales in 2006 were $193 billion). Norilsk Nickel was sold for $170 million- even though its profits alone soon reached $1.5 billion annually. The massive oil company Yukos was sold for $309 million; it now earns more than $3 billion in revenue a year. . A huge weapons factory sold for $3 million. The companies were essentially stolen, as the purchasers used public money to buy the companies. Yeltsin’s ministers transferred large sums of public money, which should have gone into the national bank or treasury, into private banks that had been hastily incorporated by oligarchs. The state then contracted with the same banks to run the privatization auctions for the oil fields and mines. The banks bid in the auctions that they were running and made themselves the owners of the previously public assets. 1998: Russia's economy crashed. December 31, 1999: Several oligarchs engineered a quiet handover of power from Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin, no elections necessary. Putin’s first act as president was signing a law protecting Yeltsin from any criminal prosecution. By 1998: More than 80 percent of Russian farms had gone bankrupt Roughly 77,000 state factories had closed, creating an epidemic of unemployment. In eight years, the number of people living below the poverty line went from 2 million to 74 million. The suicide rate doubled. Violent crime had increased almost fourfold. Before the free market policies, Russia had no millionaires; by 2003, the number of Russian billionaires had risen to seventeen. Free Market in South Korea South Korea had laws that protected national firms from foreign ownership, had resisted pressure to privatize their key state companies, and were keeping sectors like energy and transportation in public hands. They had also blocked many foreign imports from Japan, Europe and North America as they built up their own domestic markets. 1997: South Korea lifted barriers to their financial sectors, allowing a surge of paper investing and currency trading. The speed and volatility of globalized markets killed South Korea. A rumor that Thailand did not have enough dollars to back up its currency triggered a stampede by investors. Banks called in their loans and the real estate market, which had been growing so quickly that it had become a bubble, popped. Western and Japanese investment banks and multinational firms wanted the right to buy up Korea’s impressive conglomerates like Daewoo, Hyundai, Samsung and LG. Financial establishment stepped forwards with a unified message: Don’t help Asia. The IMF refused to do anything for months. When a loan offer was finally made to South Korea, it came conditional with the implementation of free market reforms. The plan included: Stripping the countries of all trade and investment protectionism. Budget cuts. Mass layoffs of public sector workers. When the plan was revealed, the market panicked. Traders thought the “reforms” meant Asia was worse than feared. They yanked out more money and further attacked the currency. South Korea sold off their assets: JP Morgan bought a stake in Kia Motors. Travelers Group and Salomon Smith Barney bought one of Korea’s largest textile companies (chair was Donald Rumsfeld; Dick Cheney was also on the board). The Carlyle Group snapped up Daewoo’s telecom division, one of Korea’s largest high-tech firms, and it became a major shareholder in one of Korea’s largest banks. Hundreds of local brands replaced by multinational giants. Motive: gobble up the entire business community, workforce, customer base and brand value built by Korean companies, often to break them apart, downsize them or shut them completely in order to eliminate competition for their imports. The Korean titan Samsung was broken up and sold for part Daewoo’s car division, which the company had valued at $6 billion, was sold off to GM for just $400 million. Coca-Cola bought a Korean bottling company for half a billion dollars. Procter and Gamble bought a Korean packaging company. General Electric acquired a controlling stake in Korea’s refrigerator manufacturer LG. Britain’s Powergen nabbed LG Energy, a large Korean electricity and gas company. Morgan Stanley, which had been the loudest in calling for a deepening of the crisis, inserted itself into many of these deals, collection huge commissions. This crisis also forced governments to sell public services to raise badly needed capital. Motorola got full control over Korea’s Appeal Telecom. British Telecom purchased a large stake in Korea’s postal services. Bell Canada got a piece of Korea’s telecom Hansol. The Results: 300,000 workers were fired every month. In 1996, 63.7 percent of South Koreans identified as middle class; by 1999 that number was down to 38.4 percent. Free Market in Iraq Saddam did not pose a threat to U.S. security, but he did pose a threat to U.S. energy companies. He had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving U.S. and British oil firms with nothing. Iraq’s economy had been anchored by its national oil company and two hundred state-owned companies, which produced food and materials for its industry, everything from cement to paper and cooking oil. The Arab nations were the lone holdouts in the globalized quest to reform the world with free market policies. The Arab nations needed to be forced. Washington’s game plan for Iraq: Shock and terrorize the entire country. Deliberately ruin its infrastructure, and contract out the rebuilding. Make it all okay with a brand new culture modeled on Chicago School economics. Between March 20 and May 2, the U.S. military bombed Iraq in a "shock and awe" program that destroyed the infrastructure. Free market policies were immediately imposed, including: Unrestricted imports. No tariffs. No duties. No inspections. No taxes. In the original Washington plan, Iraq was going to become a frontier just as Russia has been in the early nineties, but this time it would be U.S. firms- not local ones or European, Russian, or Chinese competitors- that would be first in line for the easy billions. Paul Bremer was the head of the the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the U.S.-controlled government of Iraq. Bremer said, “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” Bremer announced new economic laws: Two hundred firms were to be privatized immediately. Iraq’s corporate tax rate was lowered from roughly 45 percent to a flat 15 percent. Foreign companies could own 100 percent of Iraqi assets. Investors could take 100 percent of the profits overseas; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Investors could sign leases for forty years and then be eligible for renewal, meaning future governments would be stuck with the contracts of their occupiers. Iraq’s central bank would be prohibited from offering financing to state-owned enterprises. Bremer’s government stole $20 billion from the national oil company but held off on the privatization until later. Bremer launched a brand-new currency. We paid the U.K. firm De La Rue to do the printing, and bills were delivered in fleets of planes and distributed in armored vehicles and trucks that ran at least a thousand missions throughout the country. Within a few months, corporate plans were made: McDonald’s would open in downtown Baghdad. Funding was almost in place for a Starwood luxury hotel. General Motors was planning to build an auto plant. HSBC, the international bank head quartered in London, was awarded a contract to open branches all over Iraq, Citigroup announced plans to offer substantial loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil. Corporations were hired and paid by United States taxpayers to govern Iraq: BearingPoint designed and managed Iraq's economy. Britain’s Adam Smith Institute was paid to privatize Iraq’s companies. Private security firms and defense contractors trained Iraq’s new army and police. Creative Associates, a management-and-education firm in Washington, D.C. was given $100 million to draft a new Iraqi curriculum and print new textbooks (which never wound up being used as the program was scrapped). The Green Zone was a Halliburton run city-state, with the company in charge of everything from road maintenance to pest control to movie and disco nights. The Colorado-based engineering and construction company and Parsons was paid $28.5 million oversee four other major contractors. Iraqis had virtually no role in this plan at all. Only 15,000 Iraqi's were hired to work on the reconstruction during Bremer's tenure and Iraqi factories were not given contracts for supplies. Free market policies would also protect the corporations working in Iraq from risk: Contractors were freed of all regulations while operating in Iraq. Protected from criminal prosecutions. “Cost-plus contracts” (guaranteed taxpayer dollars for all their costs plus a guaranteed profit) = when costs go up, so do profits. The Blowback: Bremer’s first major act was to fire approximately 500,000 state workers and removing skilled people from their posts fed the resistance with angry people. Unrestricted imports and allowing foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets infuriated Iraq’s business community. Many responded by funding the resistance with the little they had left. The plan to privatize Iraq’s two-hundred state owned companies was also regarded by many Iraqis as an act of war as two-thirds of them would have to lose their jobs in order to attract foreign investors. The Bush administration, trying to lock in their policies, decided to draft a new Constitution for Iraq, first with an interim version that locked in Bremer’s laws and then with a permanent constitution that attempted (but failed) to do the same. June 2003: Bremer sent word that all local elections must stop immediately. The new plan was for Iraq’s local leaders to be appointed by the occupation. November 2003: Paul Bremer cancelled the national elections and decided to handpick the members of an Iraqi Governing Council. An elected Iraqi government would have meant having to sacrifice the economic agenda behind the war. December 2006: The Iraq Study Group called for the U.S. to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq’s oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.” The Bush administration drafted a new oil law for Iraq: Companies could sign thirty-year contracts in which they could keep a large share of Iraq’s oil profits. There were no limits on the amount of profits that foreign companies can take from the country. Foreign companies would not have to partner with Iraqi companies or hire Iraqis to work in the oil fields. Iraq’s elected parliamentarians would be excluded from drafting the terms for future oil contracts. It created the Federal Oil and Gas Council which would be a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq. It would have the ultimate decision-making power on all oil matters, with the full authority to decide which contracts Iraq did and did not sign. It was a promise of poverty in a country where 95 percent of government revenues come from oil. Free Market Elsewhere Other countries with similar free market experiences as explained in The Shock Doctrine: Equador Columbia Mexico South Africa Canada Malaysia Thailand Free Market in the United States Private companies such as Halliburton provide traditional military tasks (see Iraq). Private security guards protect our State Department diplomats and embassies. Private health care now mandated by law for citizens under 65 years old. Private charter schools with taxpayer vouchers are replacing public schools. Private banks control our financial system, protected from risk by U.S. taxpayer money. Private media stations filter news as dictated by the owners and shareholders. Private energy companies collect profits from the extraction of the United State's natural resources. U.S workers experiencing persistent high unemployment rates. U.S. workers wages have stagnated while the top .01% has seen tremendous wealth increases. U.S. workers in the public sector are losing jobs while private sector is gaining them. U.S. workers experiencing shortages in social services due to budget cuts. U.S. workers in the public sector have had wages frozen for two years. U.S. workers now use 401(k) investment plans for retirement instead of pensions. Is this what we want? Content for this episode was largely collected from The Shock Doctrine, an incredible collection of research by . Buy it from Amazon by clicking the link below:

CD002: Iran Sanctions, the Buffett Rule, & a “War on Coal”

22 september 2012 | 57 min

Iran sanctions are signed into law, a gas pipeline gets fast tracked through a NYC park, the Buffett Rule is (sort of) passed, a "War on Coal" is not really waged, and more from this week in Congress... *Signed into law* Sanctions = Shut down trade in and out of Iran. People can’t get what they need, they get mad at their government, the government needs to do what we want them to do in order to make the sanctions go away and get their people to back off. What do we want them to do? Stop developing nuclear weapons (if they actually are – hasn’t been proven). Stop human rights abuses. Open their oil industry to the “free market” Exxon Mobil, BP and others were after we took over the country History of Iran Pre 1951- Iran’s oil was owned by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now known as BP. 1951- Iran nationalized their oil industry. 1953- CIA, with lots of help from the British, overthrew the democratically elected government, installing the Shah. Oil companies were allowed back in and helped themselves to 50% of the oil profits. 1979- Iranians overthrew the Shah (the dictator installed by the US) and installed the Islamic Republic, who were not US-approved and are still in power today. The Islamic Republic nationalized the banking system and imposed controls on imports and exports, reversing the Shah’s free trade policies. They also re-nationalized the oil industry. Current sanctions take aim at that nationalized oil company… Prohibits any country or company from: 1) Helping Iran develop their oil. 2) Helping Iran construct, maintain, or repair their refineries. 3) Helping Iran construct port facilities, railways, or roads that will be used to deliver their oil. Prevents shipping companies from transporting any oil products to or from Iran. Prevents insurance companies from insuring the National Iranian Oil Company or the National Iranian Tanker Company. Section 312: Orders a report in 45 days listing the reasons that the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company are “agents” of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (their military). Turns the Iranian oil companies into military targets. Orders a report on whether sanctions on Iran’s natural gas could be applied as they are to oil. Gives the Secretary of State 180 days to create a report to address Iran’s “growing hostile presence and activity” in the Western Hemisphere. Report needs to include a plan “ensuring energy supplies from the Western Hemisphere that are free from the influence of any foreign government that would attempt to manipulate or disrupt global energy markets.” Report needs to describe the terrain, population, ports, airports, borders, media outlets, financial centers, foreign embassies, charities, religious and cultural centers, and income-generating activities in the Western Hemisphere utilized by Iran. Listed countries of concern are Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil. Four of the countries on the list have already nationalized their oil: (happening right now) The other 2 may be on the list because: – President Ortega was the President the Contras were trying to overthrow. Iran-Contra scandal is when Reagan’s CIA sold weapons to Iran and gave the money to the Contras… to beat President Ortega… who is President again. President Ortega has an alliance with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. – just elected a friendly government but also has found huge amounts of offshore oil since 2007. They might have more than us. Passed by the House, now moves into the Senate. *Signed into law* Gives money to states to change their processes for licensing veterans with medical experience in combat. Money only given to states with a shortage in medical technicians $1 million over four years = $250,000 per year = $5,000 per year per state. Passed the House, moves into the Senate. Establishes rules for dividing the assets of dead soldiers both with and without a known next of kin. Let’s the government provide caskets and urns for dead soldiers who don’t have family to pay for them. Gives Bush Wars veterans a spot for remembrance at Arlington National Cemetery. Passed the House, moves into the Senate. [caption id="attachment_36" align="aligncenter" width="625"] The proposed Rockaway natural gas pipeline (Source: Williams)[/caption] Written for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (Transco). Tells the Secretary of Interior that he can feel free to give them a permit good for 10 years. Passed the Senate; it's on it’s way to President’s desk.* *Whoopsie: the bill actually went back to the House. (11/13/2012) Buffett Rule = rich people should pay a tax rate at least as high as their secretaries. The name of the bill is a trick; the bill adds a donation box to tax return forms. It doesn’t change tax rates at all. Passed the House, moves into the Senate. No increase in funding through 2014. Can sell “extra” FEMA trailers to states. Provides money to modernize the “public alert and warning system” We must conduct tests every 3 years. Communications industry will not be forced to participate. Passed House, moves into the Senate. Eliminates all public funding of political conventions, effective next year (2013). D’s and R’s each got $18 million this year. Currently, only D’s and R’s get public money. No other political parties are eligible. Will result in more private control over political parties. Passed the House, moves into the Senate. Package of 5 bills; 4 out of the 5 bills in this package have already passed the House in 2011-2012 but failed in the Senate. TITLE I: Secretary of the Interior can’t issue any new regulations between now and 2014 that would: “Adversely impact employment in coal mines in the United States”. Reduce the amount of money the government (Federal or State) receives from coal mining. Reduce the amount of coal available for US use or for exporting for profit. Protect any land from coal mining. Regulate privately-owned coal. TITLE II: No Greenhouse Gas Regulation Under the Clean Air Act “The [EPA] Administrator may not, under this Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change” Repeals the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions Prevents states (like ) from adopting mileage standards that are stricter than the Federal standards TITLE III: Eliminates regulations for the benefit of businesses. Creates a committee, headed by the Secretary of Commerce, that will analyze how environmental regulations affect business. Eliminates some air quality rules for industrial equipment, makes the EPA start over on them, and prevents them from taking effect in under 6 years When making the regulations, the EPA must consider costs to companies and must choose the option that is “least burdensome” to those companies TITLE IV: Gives states control of regulating coal ash. Companies found in violation of regulations will have 8-10 years to make those changes. The deadline can be extended. TITLE V: EPA must analyze the impact of their regulations on “employment levels and economic activity, including estimated job losses and decreased economic activity” Numbers will be rigged “Any offsetting job gains that result from the hypothetical creation of new jobs through new technologies or government employment may not be used in the job loss calculation." “Any offsetting economic activity that results from the hypothetical creation of new economic activity through new technologies or government employment may not be used in the economic activity calculation.” Prevents EPA from over-riding water quality standards of the states. Also, prevents EPA from over-riding water quality standards of the states. McKinley Amendment prohibits the EPA from retroactively invalidating permits after they have been issued. Passed the House, moves into the Senate (where its failure is guaranteed). Vacation Time Congress returned from their 5 week summer vacation last Monday, September 10th. On Friday, September 21st, they left for their 7 week election vacation. They will return to work on Tuesday, November 13th.

CD001: A Resignation, a Land Grab, & a State of Emergency

16 september 2012 | 56 min

Congress returns from vacation, Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) resigns, President Obama continues the 9/11 State of Emergency, FISA is reauthorized, veterans benefits are held hostage, mining companies get a gift from Congress, solar power is attacked, and more from this week in Congress... Executive Producer: William Monroe Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) Resigns : "In light of the fact that nothing is going to happen for the rest of the year, and in light of the fact that (my wife) and I are facing increasing parenting challenges, this seemed the right time to make this move," Cardoza said in an interview published Tuesday by the Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert (8/14/2012) : “Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, today announced that U.S. Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) has joined the firm as a Managing Director in the firm's rapidly growing federal government affairs and public policy practice. Cardoza, a former co-chair of the moderate Blue-Dog Coalition, key member of the House Agriculture and Foreign Affairs Committees, and former California State Assemblyman, will utilize his extensive federal and state government experience to advise and strategize with clients on agriculture, energy, foreign affairs and other legislative and regulatory matters. Cardoza will be based in Washington, D.C. but will advise clients facing issues in California and Washington.” (8/14/2012) Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips, LLP is a lobbying firm. No special election will be held because resignation is so close to election 2012. 9/11 State of Emergency : “Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90- day period prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date…” “The emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year” … “The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been resolved” FISA Reauthorization Brief History of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Created in 1978- established secret courts for getting warrants for spying on foreign communications Needed probable cause Needed to show that foreign intelligence was main objective FISA Reauthorization of 2008 No warrant needed anymore as long as they say a foreigner is involved What is being done with warrentless wiretapping authority? “Utah Data Center” being built for NSA Collects emails, phone calls, texts, internet searches, parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, etc. Will be completed in September 2013 Costs 2 billion tax dollars Introduced by Glenn Gaffney, spent most of his career at CIA "The Program" by The New York Times. Watch this. The FISA reauthorization was signed into law. Good things - States to give credit to job applicants for military training - Online description of financial aid opportunities - Online information about schools (see below) - Burn pit registry - No more than $1 million per year in VA executive “performance awards” Passed the House. Blocked in Senate. Who killed it? Senate Republicans. Attached random killers - Keystone pipeline approval - Elimination of public campaign financing - Eliminated wealthy deductions: mortgage interest, rental expenses, gambling losses, electric plug in vehicles, etc. - Rand Paul (KY): eliminated funds to Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya Why did they kill it? My guess is because the clause requiring online information given to veterans about schools. They would have been given: 1) The school’s accreditation status. 2) If the school is public, non-profit, or for-profit. 3) Name of accrediting agency and their contact info for student complaints. 4) How much student loan debt is held by their students. 5) Enrollment rates, graduation rates, and retention rates of the school. 6) If they accept credits transferred from for-profit institutions. Also, schools wouldn't have been eligible for financial aid money if it awards commissions for enrolling people with financial aid. Why do I think this was the killer? February 2012: was a Republican bill that passed the House of Representatives. It removed regulations that prevent the over-charging of students with financial aid by for-profit schools. Minnesota Mining Land Swap Minnesota’s Congress and Governor signed a bill swapping state land in the Federal Wilderness area for Federal land. No Congressional action is needed. HR 5544 lets Minnesota decide the value of Federal lands, lets Minnesota draw the new map, and exempts the exchange from environmental reviews. The sponsors openly admitted that this bill was written for the mining and timber industries. The bill moved into the Senate, where it will probably not come up for a vote. Eliminated the possibility of loans for the solar industry. Grandfathered in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. The bill moved into the Senate, where it will probably not come up for a vote. - Limits government conferences to $500,000. - No limits to the amount private businesses/people can chip in. Passed the House, moves into the Senate. - Creates customer service representatives in every agency. Passed the House, moves into Senate. 14 airports outside of USA do security like we do and people flying from there do not need to be rescreened. Their bags still do. This bill allows the bags to also be considered screened in the United States. Passed the House, moves into Senate. *Signed into law (October 2012)* - Creates a digital hazardous waste manifest that anyone can use. - In 2006, a fire erupted at a hazardous waste disposal facility in North Carolina. When first responders arrived on the scene, they could not access information about the hazardous chemicals inside of the facility because the paper mani-fests were inside the building that was burning. - Made it discretionary spending, going back to the Senate. Congress Cancelled October Work Days Off for 5 full weeks in August Back for 8 days in September Off for 7 full weeks in October-November

00:00 -00:00