Congressional Dish

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)