Congressional Dish

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

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

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

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

Chip Lake is a member of the Congressional Dish community and the former Chief of Staff to retiring Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia's 3rd district. In this enlightening episode, Chip provides valuable insight on how Congressional offices operate, which committees are the most powerful, what candidates buy with their "campaign contributions", and much more. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Chip Lake is a member of the Congressional Dish community and a former Chief of Staff to retiring of . Chip also works as a consultant at and does campaign marketing work for . Chip Lake is also the host of the Contact Chip Twitter: Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

President Trump with a GOP Congress. The shock has not worn off. In this commentary-heavy episode, Jen shares some key moments from her Election Night experience, takes a close look at the incoming 115th Congress, and tries to process her thoughts on what we're in for with a fully Republican Congress working with President Donald J. Trump. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Watch This PBS Frontline: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two of the most polarizing presidential candidates in modern history. Veteran FRONTLINE filmmaker Michael Kirk goes beyond the headlines to investigate what has shaped these two candidates, where they came from, how they lead and why they want one of the most difficult jobs imaginable. Aired 9/27/16 Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

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

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

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

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