
Congressional Dish
An independent podcast examining what the U.S. Congress is doing with our money and in our names.
www.congressionaldish.com
Follow @JenBriney on Twitter
Latest episodes

Apr 10, 2016 • 1h 49min
CD123: Health or Profits
Health: Is there anything more important? In this episode, we examine three bills that moved through Congress in 2016 which would have a direct effect on the health of American citizens. Would the changes benefit you? . He will be forever loved and missed. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Highlighted in this Episode Bill Highlights the for the last year of a to be paid by health insurance companies to fund care for “high risk individuals” limits on for low income families the for getting health care as individuals the to help low income people pay for their individual premiums the for companies with less than 25 employees and provide health insurance for their employees the tax penalty for people who don’t get their own health insurance the who don’t provide their employees health insurance and backdates it to protect large companies who didn’t provide health insurance in 2015 to States that give money to any organization that provides abortions (Planned Parenthood) , which is health care for poor people the 2.3% Medical Device Tax on the manufactures of large medical equipment, even though it was from the Treasury to the Federal Hospital Insurance Fund, which is and is used to fund Medicare. Congressional Budget Office Report December 11, 2015 Vote Senate: House Author of Georgia’s 6th district : Has more than doubled it’s lobbyist spending since 2008 - ; the ones that have to pay a 2.3% medical device tax directly to members of Congress : Represents drug companies and : : : Bill Highlights from certifying any class action lawsuit unless every person in the lawsuit has suffered “the same type and scope of injury” as the named class representative has to publicly report the name and exposure history of each person and the basis of the payments to that person The information would not include their “confidential” medical record or their social security number The trust would from the trust if the request is about liability of asbestos exposure These disclosure requirements would be valid for . Vote Passed the House of Representatives: President Obama issued a Author of Virginia’s 6th District Biggest contributor during his career has been the : : : : : : : Bill Highlights Amends disclosure requirements for Instead of requiring the restaurants to display "the number of calories in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale", the to display: The number of calories in the whole item The number of servings and the calories per serving or The number of calories per however the restaurant chooses to divide it Restaurants where , the restaurant may choose to only provide nutrition information by "a remote-access menu" (such as a menu available on the Internet) as the sole method of disclosure instead of on-premises writings" Allows buffet and self-serve restaurants to publish , if they choose to. Nutrition information Regulations for enforcing this bill will have to be created within a year. The bill then at restaurants, including regulations that have already taken affect, from taking effect until 2 years after the new regulations are done, killing all nutritional information requirement for three years. Restaurants for accuracy. Restaurants for violating nutritional information laws. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Author of Washington's 5th district Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Rules Committee January 5th, 2016 Hearing: , April 29, 2015 Commercial (YouTube): Additional Reading Article: by Jim Morris, Center for Public Integrity, February 16, 2016. Article: by Mark Hofmann, Business Insurance, January 17, 2016. Article: by David Gianatasio, October 22, 2015. Article: by Michelangelo Conte, The Jersey Journal, June 9, 2015. Article: by Igor Kossov, Law360, June 2, 2014. Article: by Joe Nocera, New York Times, January 12, 2014. United States Government Accountability Office Report: , September, 2011. Article: , by Jason L. Kennedy, March 20, 2011. Article: by Alex Berenson, New York Times, April 18, 2002. Article: , Robert Pear, NYT, Dec 6, 1999. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Mar 28, 2016 • 1h 15min
CD122: European Union Attacks
In the wake of the Brussels bombings, which attacked the heart of the European Union, we examine the history of the European Union and how this terrorist attack may affect its future. 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 CNN: , March 23, 2016. Podcast Episode: , PBS Frontline, June 8, 2015. Podcast Episode: , Congressional Dish, November 22, 2015. Additional Reading Webpage: , The European Union. Article: by Brian Wheeler and Alex Hunt, BBC News, March 24, 2016. Article: , Associated Press, March 23, 2016. Article: , Democracy Now, March 23, 2016. Article: by Nicola Clark and Ron Nixon, New York Times, March 23, 2016. Article: by Catherine Hardy, Reuters, March 23, 2016. Article: by Marek Strzelecki, Bloomberg Business, March 23, 2016. Article: by Adam Taylor, Washington Post, March 23, 2016. Article: by Del Crookes, BBC Newsbeat, March 23, 2016. Article: by Nyshka Chandran, CNBC, March 22, 2016. Article: by Amy Chozick, New York Times, March 22, 2016. Article: by Melissa Quinn, The Daily Signal, March 22, 2016. Article: by Nafeez Ahmed, Middle East Eye, February 10, 2016. Book: by John Perkins, 2015. Official document: , Council of the European Union, January 16, 2015. Article: by Emma Graham-Harrison, The Guardian, January 15, 2016. Article: by Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian, April 26, 2014. Book: by Stephen Kinzer, 2013. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Mar 13, 2016 • 1h 17min
CD121: Legislative Sabotage
Stop the laws! In this episode, learn the details of three bills that passed the House of Representatives in January which would make enforcing laws more difficult for Federal agencies. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills Highlighted in This Episode : Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016 (SCRUB Act)" Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission a new five-year commission that will review government rules to determine which ones should be eliminated "to reduce the costs of regulation to the economy." The Chairman will be appointed by the President and must have "experience in rulemaking". The other eight members will come from lists created by the majority and minority leaders in Congress of "individuals learned in rulemaking". The commission will have and "the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place within the United Stats at any designated place of hearing within the United States." The bill appropriates which are available until expended. The commission members , and will be given travel expenses including a per deim. The commission will , who will . The commission , and may "to the extent funds are available" The commission will review the Code of Federal Regulations to find rules . Priority will be given to "major rules" which have been in effect more than 15 years, impose paperwork burdens" which could be reduced without "significantly diminishing" regulatory effectiveness. Goal is to reduce the cost of Federal regulations by 15% with a "minimal reduction" in the effectiveness of the regulations. Whether the rule achieved its purpose and could be repealed without recurrence of adverse effects If technology, time, economic conditions, market practices, or "other relevant factors" have rendered the . If the rule is If the rule has "excessive compliance costs" or "is otherwise excessively burdensome", as rules that give goals instead of orders and "give economic incentives to encourage desired behavior" If the rule "" If the rule of entities based in the United States Repeal procedure If Congress passes a joint resolution approving the Commission's repeal suggestions, the Federal agencies will have to repeal the rules of the joint resolution's enactment. Repealed rules without a new law enacted All records of public meetings and hearings within 1 week, Regulatory Cut-Go recommended by Commission so that costs of enforcement offset each other, but the agency must have a net reduction in costs Vote Passed the House of Representatives There is an identical bill in the Senate: President Obama issued a Author of Missouri's 8th district : Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act H.R. 712 is a combination of three bills: The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act, and the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Title 1: Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Any agency that is challenged by a private company on a regulation must within 15 days. The until after the complaint is published online and there is a public comment period. The agency much have a public comment period before settling cases and . A court that doesn't "allow sufficient time and incorporate adequate procedures" for the agency to comply with all administrative rule making procedures and any Executive order that governs rulemaking. Title II: All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act Makes every Federal agency ) on the status of every rule they are working on. ) until they have been published on the Internet for at least 6 months. Exemption for national security, emergencies, or implementing international trade agreements. Requires the first report to include cost-benefit analysis for all proposed or final rules for the ) before the enactment of this law. The agencies will have . Title III: Providing Accountability Through Transparency Requires agencies to on the Internet, capped at 100 words. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Five members of the House of Representatives and voted "Aye" on H.R. 712 of Texas's 26th district of New Jersey's 11th district of Ohio's 7th district of Florida's 17th district of Texas's 10th district There is an identical bill in the Senate: Author of Georgia's 9th district of Iowa wrote the Senate version : Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act (STREAM Act) Publication of Science Used to Create Rules The Secretary of the Interior would have to all the scientific data, environmental analysis, economic assessments, policies or guidances used in developing a new rule 90 days before before the new rule or draft of a rule is published. If the research is not published on the Internet 90 days before a rule or draft's publication, the . If the publication of research data is delayed by 6 months, the Secretary unless that would cause . Study Which Delays Regulations A on the regulatory effectiveness of the Stream Buffer Rule must be completed . The Secretary of the Interior related to the stream buffer zone rule until one year after the study is submitted. Vote Passed the House of Representatives Author of West Virginia's 2nd district His third largest contributor is Congressional Budget Office Reports , May 8, 2015. , April 16, 2015. , September 23, 2015. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Judiciary Committee, March 24, 2015. Television show: , CBS, March 6, 2016. Additional Reading Article: by Charles Clark, Government Executive, January 8, 2016. Article: by Mason Adams, Grist, April 3, 2015. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Feb 29, 2016 • 1h 48min
CD120: Cybersecurity For Sale
CISA is law; all private companies have immunity for sharing data with the government for "cybersecurity", so what happens now? In this episode, we examine the plans being discussed and implemented by Congress to secure the data stored by the U.S. Government. 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 , House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, January 8, 2016. Watch on Watch on Witnesses , Chairman and CEO of , President and CEO of Author of the , published by the National Association of Corporate Directors and used by the , Vice President of Technology Strategy at , Senior Vice President and General Manager, VMWare Sound Clip Sources Podcast Episode: , , December 3, 2015. News Report: by NBC News and Reuters, November 10, 2015. Podcast Episode: , , August 19, 2015. Additional Reading Article: by P.W. Singer, Wired Magazine, February 10, 2016. Article: by James Eng, NBC News, October 1, 2015. Congressional Research Service Report: , September 15, 2014. Executive Order: , February 12, 2013. White House website: , May 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Feb 14, 2016 • 55min
CD119: Angel Watch Center
Good news! A new law was signed that creates the Angel Watch Center within the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate travel monitoring of convicted sex offenders. In this episode, Jen discusses the new law with Tim Ballard, the Founder and CEO of , which is an organization dedicated to saving children from international sex slavery. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Outline : International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders Creates the , which will be a part of the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, within the Department of Homeland Security. The Center about individuals trying to enter the United Stets who have committed sex crimes. Information received and some information will shared with other Federal, State, and local agencies at the Center's discretion. The Center will use to inform other countries if a sex offender The Center will have to of any inaccurate information transmitted The Center of an individual's sex offender status "when appropriate" for passport application purposes. The Center will create an about notifications and forward any complaints about other Federal entities. , the Center must confirm errors in writing, take steps not to repeat them, and inform the individual of the steps taken. The United States Marshals Service about sex offenders. The regarding sex offender notifications sent by the National Sex Offender Targeting Center to the sex offender registries, including: Dates and locations of departures and arrivals Flight numbers Purpose of travel Sex offenders who fail to report their travel will The State Department will issue and may revoke passports that don't include one. The sex offender can get a new passport without the identifier if they are taken off of the sex offender registry. $6 million per year from 2017 and 2018 to implement the changes. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Human Rights, May 14, 2015. Additional Information Article: by Rebecca Kaplan, CBS News, February 11, 2016. Recommended Podcasts to with Timothy Ballard of Operation Underground Railroad with Trevor Bryant: Interview with Jennifer Briney ( to Vibin' Higher on iTunes) Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Feb 7, 2016 • 1h 29min
CD118: How to Get Your Name on the Ballot
In this special episode, we take a look at the different rules for getting on the ballot for the House of Representatives in all fifty States, and take a look at how some States made it way too hard for Independents to qualify. Executive Producer: Nickolas Zacharias Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Ballot Access Information Alabama Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 4,109 - 6,174 Fees: Filing Deadline: Alaska At-large state Signatures Needed: registered voters Fees: None Filing Deadline: Arizona Signatures Needed: 2014 Range: 2,784 - 4,381 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Arkansas Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: California As of the 2012 election, California has had a ; in order to get on the General Election ballot, you have to be one of the top two vote getters in the Primary election. [caption id="attachment_1992" align="aligncenter" width="484"] Top 2 Primary clearly benefits Republicans and Democrats[/caption] To appear on the Primary Election ballot, a candidate needs to either collect signatures or pay a fee, or a combination of the two. Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Colorado Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Connecticut Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Either or Delaware At-large state Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Florida Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 3,512 - 5,072 Fees: 2016: $6,960 Candidates can file an and get the fee waived if they don't pay anyone to collect signatures or collect campaign contributions. Filing Deadline: Georgia Signatures Needed: Signature range unavailable because the Georgia Secretary of State's office does not provide the necessary voter registration statistics online and would not provide the signature requirements by phone or email. Fees: Can be waived if the candidate turns in a Filing Deadline: Hawaii In Hawaii, candidates, regardless of party, and receive at least 10% of the votes cast for the office or receive a vote equal to or greater than the lowest vote received by the partisan candidate who was nominated. Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Idaho Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Illinois Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Indiana Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Iowa Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Kansas Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1750 Filing Deadline: Kentucky Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Louisiana Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Maine Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Maryland Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 4,624 - 5,155 Fees: Filing Deadline: Massachusetts Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Michigan Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Minnesota Candidates need to collect signatures or pay a filing fee to be on the General Election ballot Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Mississippi Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Missouri Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 3,073 - 4,622 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Montana At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 10,194 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Nebraska Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Nevada Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 803 - 1,863 Fees: Filing Deadline: New Hampshire Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: New Jersey Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: New Mexico Official petition counts until March 2016. Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: New York Signatures Needed: 2014 Range: 3,058 - 10,591 Fees: None Filing Deadline: North Carolina Signatures Needed: : 15,493 - 24,709 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: North Dakota At-large state Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Ohio Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: (the day before the Primary Election) Oklahoma In Oklahoma, candidates need to pay a filing fee or collect signatures in order to appear on the General Election ballot Signatures Needed: Approximately 15,000 signatures Fees: Filing Deadline: Oregon Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Pennsylvania Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Rhode Island Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: South Carolina Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: South Dakota At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 2,774 Fees: None Filing Deadline: Tennessee Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Texas Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Utah Signatures Needed: Fees: Filing Deadline: Vermont Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Virginia Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Washington As of the 2008 election, Washington has had a ; in order to get on the General Election ballot, you have to be one of the top two vote getters in the Primary election. To qualify for the Primary Election: Signatures Needed: Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: West Virginia Signatures Needed: 2016 Range: 1,404 - 1,543 Fees: 2016: $1,740 Filing Deadline: Wisconsin Signatures Needed: Fees: None Filing Deadline: Wyoming At-large state Signatures Needed: 2016: 3,302 Fees: Filing Deadline: Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Jan 31, 2016 • 1h 18min
CD117: Authorization for Limitless War
War ahead! While the country was busy preparing for a giant snowstorm, the leader of the Senate quietly made an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) eligible for a vote in the Senate, fast tracking it through normal Senate process. In this episode, take a look at the details of this AUMF and find out what the war mongers in charge might be planning to do with it. To get the most out of this episode, listen to and Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Texts : A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its associated forces (Lindsay Graham's AUMF) "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor organizations." President has to submit a report to Congress every 60 days. "The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5." (c) "The authority granted... does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." Section 5: "The term "associated persons or forces" means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities agains the United States or its coalition partners" Duration: "This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized." Repeal: "The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is hereby repealed." "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, December 9, 2015. Witnesses Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense General Paul Selva, US Air Force, Vice Chairman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hearing: , Senate Armed Services Committee, January 20, 2016. Witnesses General Jack Keane, , at , Dean and Executive Professor at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. , Former Assistance Secretary of State of European and Eurasian Affairs Video/Article: by Ali Weinberg, ABC News, January 10, 2016. Video: , The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, September 15, 2014. , January 21, 2016 () Additional Reading Webpage: Webpage: , Cornell University Law School Article: by Sara Mimms and Alex Rogers, National Journal, January 21, 2016. Article: by Clare Foran, The Atlantic, January 22, 2016. Article: by Rachel Oswald, Roll Call, January 21, 2016. Article: by Seung Min Kim, Politico, January 21, 2016. Article: by Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today, December 1, 2015. Report: , Congressional Research Service, April 2015. Article: by Holly Yeagar, Washington Post, October 10, 2013. Listener Recommendations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Jan 24, 2016 • 57min
CD116: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – Environment Chapter
In the third and final episode in our Trans-Pacific Partnership series, we take a look at the TPP Environment Chapter; would the treaty actually improve enforcement of environmental laws around the world? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), November 17, 2015. Senior Fellow in Global Economy and Development, Digital Task Force Member at June 2015 – January 2016 (8 months) Washington D.C. Metro Area "Provided advice on the digital trade issues between the U.S. and the EU" Subject Matter Expert for the , World Trade Organization "Expert appointment to the E15 working group developing an agenda for the WTO on climate change issues Former trade negotiator with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Former diplomat to the Australian Embassy in Washington D.C., specializing in trade and climate change issues. Alexander von Bismarck "An international campaigning organization committed to investigating and exposing environmental crime" Served in United Nations and World Bank Responsible Trade Program Director, Sierra Club Highlights : Governments "shall cooperate to address matters" related to pollution from ships : "Cooperation" includes "dialogues, workshops, seminars, conferences.. technical assistance, the sharing of best practices on policies and procedures, and the exchange of experts." Cooperative activities "are subject to the availability of funds" and the participating governments "shall decide, on a case-by-case basis, the funding of cooperative activities." : Each government "shall" create sanctions for violations of environmental law that "may include" a right to bring action against the violator for damages or injunctive relief. : "Corporate Social Responsibility": Each government "should encourage" companies to "adopt voluntarily" standards to protect the environment. The voluntary standards "should be designed in a manner that maximises their environmental benefits and avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade." : Each government "shall promote and encourage the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity" The governments "shall cooperate" to address "matters of mutual interest"; 'cooperation' means "exchanging information". : "Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy" Says the governments recognize that the transition requires collective action Governments "shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest" : Each government "shall seek to operate a fisheries management system that regulates marine wild capture fishing and that is designed to prevent overfishing and overcapacity..." Each government "shall promote the long-term conservation of sharks, marine turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, through the implementation and effective enforcement of conservation and management measures." "No Party shall grant or maintain any of the following subsidies..." that negatively affect fish stocks. Gives the governments three years to change their laws to comply. : The governments "commit to promote conservation and to combat the illegal take of, and illegal trade in, wild fauna and flora. The parties "shall exchange information", "undertake joint activities" and "endeavor to implement... resolutions." Such measures "shall include sanctions, penalties... that can act as a deterrent to such trade." "Each Party retains the right to make decisions regarding the allocation of administrative, investigatory, and enforcement resources." : Environmental issues are eligible for the Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunals Additional Reading Article: by Todd Tucker, Washington Post, January 8, 2016. Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Article: by David Shukman, BBC News, November 26, 2014. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Jan 17, 2016 • 1h 22min
CD115: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Access to Medicine
Need drugs? The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an international treaty that Congress needs to approve. In this episode, find out how the TPP would affect your access to medicine. Would this treaty provide you access to life-saving drugs or would it provide the pharmaceutical industry excessive profits? Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Congress did not stand when President Obama told them to pass the TPP Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), December 8, 2015. VP of Global Innovation Policy, Previously worked at the stock market, where he created the , which keeps companies up to date on their stock prices, and the Founder of , a high-tech services firm, and , an investment firm. Senior VP for International Affairs, Biotechnology Industry Organization Former Vice President of International Government Relations at Former Deputy Vice President of International Affairs for Director of Policy and Analysis, Former Special Advisor to Former Human Rights Advisor for the World Health Organization Former laywer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Director, Global Access to Medicines Program Highlights : Forces all TPP countries to "ratify or accede to" six international treaties if they haven't done so already : Trademark protections will be valid for 10 years : Patents will be available for "new uses of a known product, new methods of using a known product, and new processes of using a known product." Exclusions: Countries can individually exclude surgical methods for the treatment of animals or humans, plants, animals, and biological processes for producing plants and animals from patentability : Patents for biologics will be for a minimum of five years : Copyright terms for performances or phonograms will be the life of the author plus 70 years. If the producer is a company, the copyright protecton will last for 70 years. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: , Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs, May 12, 2015. YouTube: by Additional Reading Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Article: by Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic (re-posted on USA Today), June 21, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Article: by Amarendra Bhushan, CEO World Magazine, August 27, 2014. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by

Jan 10, 2016 • 1h 3min
CD114: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Investment Chapter
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is finished and will be eligible for a vote in Congress in February 2016. In December, the Democrats held a hearing on the Investment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this episode, highlights from that hearing and a summary of the provisions in one of the TPP's most important chapters. Please support Congressional Dish: to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Trans-Pacific Partnership Text , Office of the US Trade Representative, November 5, 2015. Hearing Highlighted in this Episode , House Ways and Means Committee (Democrats), December 2, 2015. Deputy Director and Adjunct Professor of law at the Harrison Institute for Public Law, Georgetown University Law Center Served on the during the Obama Administration Parter at , an international corporate law firm with 9 offices in the United States and 11 offices outside the country (see for list of clients) Served in the Office of the US Trade Representatives and on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration Served on the during the Obama Administration Vice President of during the George W. Bush administration Was a as an Associate at Sidley Austin during the George W. Bush administration's early years Was on the Democratic staff of the US Senate Committee on Finance during the early Obama administration years. Former staffer to former Rep. Earl Pomeroy for over nine years. Deputy Chief of Staff, , which represents 12.5 million American workers. Vice Chairwoman of the during the Obama Administration Investment Chapter Highlights : Countries can't treat companies from other countries any differently than they treat companies from their own : Countries must provide police protection to foreign companies : Removal of subsidies does not count as a violation of the treaty, even if the company is financially harmed : Countries can nationalize their assets if they pay the companies with interest : Countries can not require companies to use domestic goods or to buy products from within the country ("Buy American") : Conflicts between multinational companies and TPP countries will be settled through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system : There is a statute of limitations of three years, six months from when the company should have known a "breach" occurred : The three judges will be selected by the company and the government involved (one each) and the third one either agreed upon or appointed by the : The tribunal can award attorney's fees to the case winner : The burden of proof lies with the company making the claim : ISDS tribunal documents will be available to the public : Puts limits on the awards Sound Clip Sources YouTube Video: , February 15, 2015. Additional Reading Article: by Vicki Needham, The Hill, November 5, 2015. Article: by Alexandra Stevenson, New York Times, October 15, 2015. Article: by Kevin Granville, New York Times, October 5, 2015. Op-Ed: by Rep. Ron Kind, LaCrosse Tribune, April 13, 2015 Article: , The Canadian Press, March 20, 2015. Report: by Ian Fergusson, Mark McMinimy, and Brock Williams, Congressional Research Service, March 20, 2015. Report: , United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, June 26, 2013. Article: by Felix Salon, Reuters, December 11, 2009. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: by (found on by mevio) Cover Art Design by