Congressional Dish

On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria wiped out the electricity on the entire island of Puerto Rico. Six months later the lights are still off for too many people. In this episode, by hearing highlights of Congressional testimony from Puerto Rico's government officials and through stories of Jen's recent trip to the island, learn the good news and the bad news about life right now on Puerto Rico. Executive Producer: Ralph and Carol Lynn Rivera Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 CD028: Crisis in Puerto Rico CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico Additional Recommended Listening The David Pakman Show Additional Reading Article: Needs go unmet 6 months after Maria hit Puerto Rico by Danica Coto, AP News, March 20, 2018. Article: Six months after Maria, the hardest hit city in Puerto Rico is still being ignored by AJ Vicens, Grist, March 20, 2018. Article: The battle for paradise by Naomi Klein, The Intercept, March 20, 2018. Report: U.S. executive appointed head Puerto Rico power company by Dalissa Zeda Sanchez, Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Report: Puerto Rico legislature sends education reform to governor's desk for enactment by Genesis Ibarra, Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Report: Gov presents Puerto Rio justice, agriculture reorganization plans, Caribbean Business, March 20, 2018. Article: 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost six months since Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Ricans are still dying by John D. Stutter, CNN, March 15, 2018. Article: Puerto Rico reforms could boost GNP by 1.5 percent: Jaresko by Daniel Bases, Reuters, March 14, 2018. Press Release: Committee seeks answers on corruption at Puerto Rico Power Utility, House Committee on Natural Resources, March 12, 2018. Report: Recycled proposals in Puerto Rico's fiscal plans by Luis J. Valentin Ortiz, City & State New York, March 11, 2018. Article: 'This city has been ignored': Yabucoa, ground zero for Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, still reeling by Rick Jervis, USA Today, March 11, 2018. Article: The role of private investment in rebuilding Puerto Rico by The Brian Lehrer Show, WNYC, March 8, 2018. Opinion: Puerto Rico? Guinea pig for water privatization by Britt Fremstad, Public Citizen, 2018. Article: Why Puerto Rico is pushing to privatize its schools by Mimi Kirk, City Lab, February 27, 2018. Report: Citigroup drove Puerto Rico into debt. Now it will profit from privatization on the island by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, February 21, 2018. Report: Hedge fund-driven austerity could come back to bite the hedge funds driving it in Puerto Rico by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, February 3, 2018. Article: Privatization won't fix Puerto Rico's broken power utility by Lara Merling, NACLA, February 1, 2018. Press Release: Bishop statement on Puerto Rico fiscal plans, PREPA privatization by House Committee on Natural Resources, January 25, 2018. Report: Puerto Rico governor seizes opportunity created by Hurricane Maria, plans to privatize electric power by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, January 24, 2018. Article: The peril of privatizing PREPA by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, January 24, 2018. Report: Puerto Rico to sell off crippled power utility PREPA by Daniel Bases, Reuters, January 22, 2018. Report: Puerto Rico utility workers charge that federal government is hoarding reconstruction supplies by Kate Aronoff, The Intercept, January 16, 2018. Article: PREPA "Warehouse 5" was no secret by Alex Figueroa Cancel, El Nuevo Dia, January 16, 2018. Article: Energy answers marchincinerator: the struggle continues by Leysa Caro Gonzelez, El Nuevo Dia, January 16, 2018. Report: Armed federal agents enter warehouse in Puerto Rico to sieze hoarded electric equipment by Kate Aronof, The Intercept, January 10, 2018. Article: Puerto Rico said 64 people died in Hurricane Maria. A new report puts the death toll over 1,000 by Aric Jenkins, Time.com, December 19, 2017. Report: Nearly 1,000 more people died in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria by Center for Investigative Journalism, Latino USA, December 7, 2017. Law Firm Post: Did you lose money investing in Puerto Rico bonds with Morgan Stanley financial advisor Robert Dennison? by Erez Law Firm, December 6, 2017. Article: The lineman got $63 an hour. The utility was billed at $319 an hour. by Frances Robles, The New York Times, November 12, 2017. Article: Ex-Morgan Stanley broker at center of Puerto Rico bond disputes by Bruce Kelly, Investment News, September 28, 2017. Report: Maps: Hurricane Maria's path across Puerto Rico by Sarah Almukhtar, Matthew Bloch, Ford Fessenden and Jugal K. Patel, The New York Times, September 26, 2017. Article: Incinerating the future: Austerity crisis threatens wetlands and economic opportunity for Puerto Rico by Adriana Gonzelez, The Planet: Sierra Club, August 14, 2017. Report: Puerto Rico's Fiscal Control Board spent $31 million in fiscal year 2017 by Julio Ricardo Varela, Latino USA, August 2, 2017. Report: SEC probes Barclays, Morgan Stanley bankers over Puerto Rico by Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg, June 28, 2017. Report: Puerto Rico Senate approves bill to eliminate debt audit commission by Cindy Burgos Alvarado, Caribbean Business, April 18, 2017. Article: A glimpse of Natalie Jaresko by Jose A. Delgado Robles, El Nuevo Dia, March 29, 2017. Article: Ukraine must fully implement IMF Program, says former finance minister by Mitch Hulse, Atlantic Council, April 14, 2016. Article: How free electricity helped dig $9 billion hole in Puerto Rico by Mary Williams Walsh, The New York Times, February 1, 2016. Article: Puerto Rico - a way forward by Anne O. Krueger, Ranjit Teja, and Andrew Wolfe, GDB.PR.GOV, June 29, 2015. Article: Meet the woman overhauling Ukraine's economy - and born and raised in the suburbs of Chicago by James Ellingworth, Business Insider, March 1,2015. Article: Proposed Arecibo waste-to-energy plan gets EPA nod by Michelle Kantrow, Energy Answers, May 10, 2012. Research Paper: Does private management lead to improvement of water services? Lessons learned from the experiences of Bolivia and Puerto Rico by Susana Maria Cortina de Cardenas, University of Iowa Research Online, Spring 2011. Resources DESMOG Blog Info: Edison Electric Institute Energy Answers Resources: Puerto Rico Resource Recovery and Renewable Energy Project International Monetary Fund Bio: Anne O. Krueger International Monetary Fund Blog: Ranjit Teja LinkedIn Profile: Noel Zamot, Federal Oversight Management Board USDA Report: Arecibo Waste to Energy Generation and Resource Recovery Facility Arecibo, Puerto Rico Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Hurricane Recovery Efforts in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, Power Utility Officials; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, November 14, 2017. Witnesses: - Natalie Jaresko - Executive Director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico - Jose Roman Morales - Associate Commission and Interim President of the Puerto Rico Energy Commission - Ricardo Ramos - Executive Director of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority - Julio Rhymer - Executive Director of the US Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority 53:40 Ricardo Ramos: Many of the fallen poles fell because of the additional weight of infrastructure that originally was not supposed to be there, so the grid itself is old—are new. Design standards account for an amount of additional infrastructure for communications and other, but many of the poles were—they had communications because some local law of Puerto Rico permitted the common right-of-way usage, so we had to allow telecom companies to put the telecommunications cables there—but the pole itself not necessarily was designed to those standards. 59:10 Natalie Jaresko: So, as you know, Madame Chairman, the board took an action and filed in the Title III court to name a chief transformation officer. The court ruled yesterday against us in that action, although we have not yet seen the written judgment, so I can't comment on it in detail. Hearing: Hurricane Recovery Efforts in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, Governors; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Witnesses: - Donald Jackson - Deputy Commanding General of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Civil and Emergency Operations - Kenneth Mapp - Governor of US Virgin Islands - Jose Roman Morales - Associate Commission and Interim President of the Puerto Rico Energy Commission - Ricardo "Ricky" Rossello - Governor of Puerto Rico - Bruce Walker - Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 38:20 Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy Bruce Walker: PREPA, with the limited crews that it had—I will point to this map over here—made an early decision to have to tie the southern portion, where the generation is, to the northern portion, where the load is. And in doing so, they made a key decision to construct the 230 kV line from the south, bringing it up to the San Juan area, the Bayamon substation. On the map, you can see here, from down here, wrapping up through here, that that align is going to appear all the way over to here. What was important about that was that one decision and the efforts made by PREPA, with limited staffing, enabled the power to be distributed to where the load was and in conjunction with the other big decision, which is the next slide, Jennifer, the Army Corps, working with PREPA, installed two 25-megawatt generators at the Palo Seco generation plant, and that, in conjunction with the rebuild of the 230 line, enabled power to be distributed to the northern portion to start picking up commercial and residential customers. Those two efforts were monumental, given the facts and circumstances. The installation of this generator was, with the letting of the contract and the install—and I was at Palo Seco when this was being put in—and the work that had to be done was really incredible—we had fantastic support from PREPA in coordinating it particularly with the re-laying and the coordination with the Army Corps. 1:10:00 Governor Ricardo Rossello: We have several flaws in terms of the design, aside from having antiquated power plants. Most of our generation was done in the south, yet most of the people and most of the consumption is done in the north, so you lose about 12 to 15% in the transmission, going northward. It is time, it is an opportunity, to rethink that, where do we have that generation and make it better? Piggybacking on Senator Cassidy's comments, I think it is an opportunity also to leapfrog in renewables. I've envisioned us leapfrogging to 25% renewables in Puerto Rico and recognizing that there are some mitigation strategies that we need to put in place. That is why we have worked with the PREPA governing board to have a group of thought leaders that can actually help us in the design, looking forward, and specifically looking where this could happen. Last-mile events in Puerto Rico are very important. It's important to consider the terrain. Puerto Rico's not flat; it's got a mountainous region. And so we will be very aggressively pursuing that we get to 90, 95% of energy consumption and energy generation, but that last mile always takes more time because there are sort of remote areas of the island. This is an opportunity to make microgrids in Puerto Rico so that they can be sustained in different areas. And, lastly, adding to this whole component of renewables, I think it is an opportunity to look at this from a bottom-up-and-a-top-down approach. With the collaboration of FEMA, we were able to, for the first time in the STEP program, allow that either a power plant generator be added to the house or a renewable battery-pack solar combo be added to those homes in the STEP program. Now, we expect that there will be about 80,000 homes that will be introduced in the STEP program. Think about what that means if half of them decide to go with the renewable battery-pack route. It means that now you have the starting conditions to actually think about things like a virtual power plant in Puerto Rico, where you can have smart distribution of the energy; and where some days it might be cloudy in some areas in Puerto Rico—it'll be sunny, certainly, in others as well—and that energy can be distributed alongside, of course, a complement of utility-size and industrial-size generation, which I envision, Senator, should start transitioning from petroleum-based generation, which is costly and, of course, more harmful, to liquid-gas and so forth generation. So, those are, in a nutshell, what we envision the sort of future grid of Puerto Rico looking like. 1:34:15 Senator Catherine Cortez Masto: It's my understanding under the Stafford Act, it's Section 406(e), that limits the use of federal disaster-relief funds for repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately before the major disaster. Now, my understanding of that, then, is that all of the talk that I've heard today, which is important talk about new infrastructure—burying lines, looking at how we add renewable capacity—that is something that is not going to be addressed through the funding, through the relief, that comes from the federal government. Is that correct? And I guess I'm asking Mr. Walker and General Jackson, is that your understanding? Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy Bruce Walker: That is my understanding. As I mentioned earlier, we're doing emergency restoration work now. A number of the things that have been mentioned here, if the Congress approves additional appropriations, those would be opportunities that we could further, you know, build into— Masto: And that's—are you asking today, then? That's what you're asking Congress today, additional appropriations outside of the Stafford Act be able to set up new infrastructure and do just what we've heard today, because we know another hurricane's going to come through, or some other disaster. I think it's just the way the climate is today. Is that the ask today from the governors? Governor Ricardo Rossello: To amend that, could you repeat the question, Senator? Masto: Sure. So, the Stafford Act limits the amount of— Rossello: Yeah. Masto: —money that you're getting from the federal government for disaster relief to repair and reconstruct. Rossello: Yeah. Masto: It is not for new construction or new types of renewable energy or burying lines. So, are you coming today for additional funds outside of the Stafford Act, outside of disaster relief? Is that what I'm hearing today? Governor Kenneth Mapp: Yes. Yes, because under Stafford, if a system connected to the power generation isn't damaged, it can't be touched. If it's cost effective, it can be mitigated, but the whole power system is all connected, and so if we want to change to more-efficient renewables—wind, solar—if the generation system hasn't been damaged, then we can have an exclusion. So we will need changes in the language to permit that. Rossello: Yes. We are, we recognize what the limitations of FEMA funding are within this, so we're asking for additional funding so that we can get that flexibility as well and actually rebuild better. I mean, again, you can discuss whether it's a good idea or not on the context of the merit of the energy and the structure, but it is really just a bad idea to rebuild a system that is frail over again, spend good taxpayer money in that, because you're going to have to do it once over again. 1:44:34 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Based on your estimates, how much are you asking Congress to fund in terms of the kind of modernization, resilience, etc. that you would like to see in Puerto Rico? Governor Ricardo Rossello: Yeah. It's about $17 billion in damage estimates. Hirono: One year? Rossello: No. For the bulk of the process. Hirono: Seventeen billion dollars? Rossello: Yes, that's right. Hirono: And is it your—well, I know that you hope that Congress will authorize that, and do you think that authorization or the funding to occur in one year, or is it over a period of time? Rossello: No, it would be over a period of time, of course. 1:53:28 Senator Bernie Sanders (VT): Puerto Rico is struggling with an unsustainable 75-billion-dollar debt and $49 billion in pension obligations. More than one-third of that debt is held by Wall Street vulture funds that are getting interest rates of up to 34% on tax-exempt bonds they purchased for as little as 29 cents on the dollar. Is that correct, Governor? Governor Ricardo Rossello: Yep. Hearing: Puerto Rico Recovery Challenges; House Natural Resources Committee, November 7, 2017. Witnesses: - Natalie Jaresko - Executive Director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico - Angel Perez Otero - Mayor of Guanynabo, Puerto Rico - Noel Zamot - Revitalization Coordinator of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico 22:30 Natalie Jaresko: As the committee is aware, the board has recently named Noel Zamot as chief transformation officer of PREPA, with all the powers of a CEO and reporting to the board. We believe this is absolutely essential both to restoring service as soon as possible and to creating a sustainable, efficient, resilient, and fiscally accountable power system for the island. While the board is confident, the PROMESA, coupled with fundamental aspects of bankruptcy law, gives us the power and responsibility to do as we have done. Some parties are vigorously contesting our authority in proceedings before the Title III judge. To avoid uncertainty and lengthy delays and litigation, congressional reaffirmation of our exercise of our authority is welcome. 23:08 Natalie Jaresko: We have also implemented a contract-review policy as a tool to ensure transparency throughout the government, for the benefit of the people of Puerto Rico and all stakeholders. The policy applies to all contracts in which the commonwealth or any covered instrumentality is a counterparty, including those with the federal government, state governments, and private parties. The policy provides that all contracts of 10 million or more must be submitted to the board for its approval before execution. In addition, the board retains the authority to adopt other methods, such as random sampling of contracts below that 10-million-dollar threshold, to assure that they promote market competition and are not inconsistent with the approved fiscal plan. 26:48 Noel Zamot: I will retain key leaders on my staff to enable speed and effectiveness in our decision-making. I'd like to highlight two key roles. The chief operations officer will be responsible for day-to-day operations of the utility. This will initially be a senior leader from within PREPA but will be augmented by an industry executive identified in conjunction with input that we are receiving from the Edison Electric Institute. 27:41 Noel Zamot: I've also identified key executives to serve on a board of advisors. These are CEOs from public and private utilities who have generously volunteered to bring their considerable expertise to help with this task. I will also rely on an internal group of world-class experts from multi-national utilities, the energy sector, academia, and more. 28:22 Noel Zamot: Puerto Rico's energy strategy calls for 50% renewables by 2040, with a balance of natural and LP gas mix; regional grids, with generation close to demand; physical hardening and control systems to provide resiliency; and widespread distributed generation, all wrapped by an empowered and accountable energy regulator. PROMESA is clear in its guidance to attract private capital to achieve this end state. We need to do just that, not only for generation but to attract innovative capital solutions from the private sector for transmission and distribution as well. 43:42 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): Do you or the board hold a view that, relative to Title V, waiving or eliminating additional federal environmental safeguards like NEPA or regulations will accelerate the recovery in Puerto Rico? Ms. Jaresko, you and then Mr. Zamot, if you don't mind, as well, answering the question. Natalie Jaresko: I certainly believe that further expeditious permitting is a requirement. I'm not an expert on the individual sets of permitting, but I want to underline that it's both federal, commonwealth, and municipality permitting at all levels. It needs to be expedited for any private-sector investment to become a quick recovery. Grijalva: Okay. Mr. Zamot, do you think that's needed? Noel Zamot: Thank you, sir. My view is that economic growth and fast-tracking projects is not inconsistent with being good stewards of the environment, and we have a very robust process within Title V and within the working group that we have set with the government to ensure that we, the residents of Puerto Rico, are very respectful of that. Grijalva: If I may, sir, let me just follow up with you. You cite the proposed trash incinerators an example of a project Title V that could come to fruition, but I see an example of why Title V, in this instance, doesn't work. Public comments about the project are overwhelming in opposition. It's opposed by both mayors' groups, representing all the mayors in the island. It was stalled in part because it couldn't get a permit to drain 2.1 million gallons from a protected wetland. Farmers and residents concerned about the effects on their health, that it could undermine recycling programs that are in place. It flooded during the hurricane. We have a before-and-after situation, that's up on the screen. It flooded during and released some of the hundreds of tons of toxic ash that could release, in the future, toxic ash into surrounding neighborhoods. And it requires a major loan from the federal government to go forward even though it's fully privately funded for 67 megawatts of power. Is that what we can expect in terms of Title V critical projects? Zamot: Sir, there are many voices that, obviously, in a democratic process, voice their concern with such a project, but there are equal number of voices on the positive side. We don't look at this project in Arecibo necessarily as even a power project. It is really a waste-management project. Puerto Rico has a critical, essentially a crisis, in waste management and landfill use that has been identified by the EPA, and that is why the EPA has actually been supportive of this program. 47:30 Representative Doug Lamborn (CO): Is it safe in assuming that pretty much 100% of the electricity generated in Puerto Rico today is from burning fuel oil? Noel Zamot: Sir, I would say it's 96%. There is approximately 4% that is renewables in Puerto Rico right now. Lamborn: And as we know, fuel oil is very expensive and very dirty. Zamot: That is correct, sir. Lamborn: So, I like the plan. I think you said by 2040, 50% renewables, 50% natural gas through liquefied form. Zamot: That's correct. Lamborn: Have you identified investors who are willing to make that huge investment in a LNG terminal? Zamot: Sir, there are a number of investors that are actually very bullish on Puerto Rico's long-term prospects, and we and the board and specifically in my role as revitalization coordinator, we receive a lot of proposals, a lot of questions about how people can bring innovative capital solutions using private capital to bear, to benefit, the reconstruction of the grid and the people of Puerto Rico. Lamborn: Well, I would really urge you to keep pushing in that direction because I don't think nuclear or coal is going to be a solution. Renewables are great, but to provide that much electricity in that short of time is unrealistic. So I welcome the discussion about LNG. 50:30 Representative Doug Lamborn (CO): And the last thing I want to ask you about is that 800-million-dollar project, and the ranking member referred to it: burning waste to create electricity. Is my understanding that that would be privately funded and would not need government subsidies of any kind? Noel Zamot: That is correct, sir. It's entirely privately funded. Some of the capital structure includes some federal loans, but there is no money from Puerto Rico, and it relies on relatively new technology that is respectful of emissions. 51:53 Representative Grace Napolitano (CA): The incinerator would be built in an area in Arecibo previously contaminated by a battery recycling plant, and it was flooded during the hurricanes. Has the area been tested for lead, arsenic, and other contaminants? Noel Zamot: Ma'am, I do not have the specific details on what work has been accomplished to date, but we do know that the company that is planning that work has done extensive mitigation pre-work— Napolitano: How long has the plant been there, that it hasn't been tested? Zamot: Ma'am, I do not have that information. Napolitano: Would you mind sending the answers to this committee— Zamot: Yes, ma'am. Napolitano: —so we can understand that. And how does the Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC plan to prevent their landfill from being flooded by future hurricanes? Zamot: Ma'am, could you repeat the question? Napolitano: How do you prevent landfill from being flooded by hurricanes? Zamot: That is an engineering question that I'm not prepared to answer right now. I would imagine that that has been looked at in the permitting that the company has received to date. Napolitano: Okay. When and—how and when does the company plan to bury the toxic ashes generated by the incinerator? Zamot: That is being currently discussed with the current Puerto Rico administration. Napolitano: Is, let's see, how many Puerto Rico municipalities refuse to send trash to the plant incinerator? Zamot: I think the answer to that is many, because that represents a threat to current waste management in Puerto Rico, which the EPA has identified as a critical need to address. 1:19:36 Representative Steve Pearce (NM): Now, one of the problems that I see, just as a former business owner taking a look at it, one of the reasons that residents had to pay such a high rate is that certain entities didn't have to pay for the electrical power. One of those would be the hotels. So are they still exempt from paying their power? Natalie Jaresko: Each of the economic development plans that Puerto Rico implemented over the years had individual tax agreements— Pearce: I'm just asking about the hotels. Jaresko: —between businesses and energy. Pearce: Are they still exempt? Are they not exempt? Jaresko: Some of them are, yes. Pearce: Some of them are exempt. Jaresko: That's correct. Pearce: Now, also, cities were also exempt, and so city governments were exempt prior, according to what I've read. Noel Zamot: That's correct, sir. 1:38:50 Natalie Jaresko: The board certainly considers privatization as one of the options going forward. There's a question that remains open to see whether it's privatization of the entire power sector, meaning generation transmission and distribution or some select part, or whether it just means bringing in private sector to compete and bring down the cost and bring up the efficiency of electricity. We're looking at all of those as we define this fiscal plan for PREPA. 1:49:50 Representative Raul Labrador (ID): You stated that prior to the hurricane that the board possessed the authority to execute its mission and deliver on the underlying mandate Congress set with PROMESA, but with the devastation, you allude that those tools may be inadequate. So please tell us why does the board currently have—does the board currently have the tools necessary to facilitate efficient and effective recovery? Natalie Jaresko: I will try to be clear. I believe the board has the tools, that PROMESA gives us the tools. That said, when there are disagreements, the use of those tools ends up in costly and time-consuming litigation. Today more than ever that time and that cost is not helping Puerto Rico, so we asked for clarity of the tools that we have—whether it is in the appointment of a CTO through Title III, whether it is the implementation of our contract-policy review, or whether or not it is the implementation of the fiscal plans in full when certified. Labrador: So, what else do you need to be successful? Is there anything else that we need to give you to be successful? Jaresko: I think we would appreciate a legislative affirmation of those and/or conditioning of appropriations on those powers as you see fit. 2:11:11 Representative Garret Graves (LA): The governor recently proposed a law to address emergencies and disasters. Part of that law would allow, basically, eliminating or waiving sales tax in Puerto Rico. Are you aware—is that proposal on your radar screen? Were you consulted? Natalie Jaresko: No, we were not consulted. And I am aware that there has been a problem because of the lack of electricity and the collections of the sales-and-use tax. However, as electricity comes back, the collection process should also return. Graves: So you were not consulted. You were not aware on the front end. If ultimately the governor certifies that this is in compliance with the fiscal plan and you determine otherwise, what happens then? How does that play out? Jaresko: Well, I would hope that they would consult prior to putting that policy in place because it is something that can have a direct adverse fiscal effect, and it could be not in compliance with the fiscal plan. If they certify that it is, as you described, then we have a situation which could potentially, again, lead to difference of opinion in terms of what our role is in PROMESA. And it is very difficult for us, once it is certified by the government as being in compliance, if we disagree, to reverse that. Graves: I'm sorry. Say that last part again. Jaresko: If the government certifies that the executive order or law is in compliance with the fiscal plan, it is difficult for us to reverse that. Graves: Your hands are effectively tied. Do you think Congress should revisit that in terms of something that you believe causes economic harm or undermines the objectives of the fiscal plan but you don't have the ability to actually help reset that? Jaresko: I think it should be very clear that the intent of PROMESA was for us to be able to stop things that were having an adverse effect on the fiscal plan, yes. 2:26:37 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): Arecibo incinerator, Mr. Zamot, I would hope you would talk to Secretary Vilsack because you seem to have a different perspective than he does, since the loan from the USDA is through the Rural Utilities Services. In other words, the money is not in order to do something with waste management; the money is to create energy. But you said to us earlier—and correct me if I'm wrong, if I misunderstood—that the purpose is one of for garbage, basically, disposal, and not for energy. How do you see it? Is it garbage disposal or energy? What is the primary purpose of it? Noel Zamot: Sir, the government of Puerto Rico has a letter out, and they consider that plan in Arecibo to be both a provider of energy— Gutierrez: But when you said primarily, you said primarily. Zamot: The plan at Arecibo, where about 2% of the aggregate electrical demand— Gutierrez: Okay. So primarily, I heard you—and we can go back to the record—you said that it was primarily; yet, they are asking for a loan between half a million and 750 million dollars. And let me just assure you and everybody here: Given the fact that the government of Puerto Rico already owes over $2 billion, unless Mrs. Jaresko's going to use some of her skills to eliminate that debt, I don't see how we're going to do that. And in the last 25 seconds, because I want to focus on this issue with you, do you believe that the control board has such power that you do not have to take into consideration the concerns of the duly elected mayors of the cities that will be affected by the incinerator? Or do you feel you need to consult with them before you make a decision going forward? Zamot: Sir, in 9 seconds, the statute provides for a public comment period that in conclusion— Gutierrez: So, you don't believe. You do believe that you're supreme. You're kind of a dictator over everything. 2:32:05 Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez (PR): You say that the board has the power to name a chief transformation officer to take over the management of PREPA, and at the same time, I know the state government, state legislator, the governor is against that. And you filed a motion in the court to allow that to happen. Do you have the power or you don't have the power to actually name the coordinator board? Natalie Jaresko: Thank you. We believe we do have that power, and that's why we filed that petition in court. We believe we have that power under Title III as any representative of a debtor, and the board is named the representative of the debtor, in the law in PROMESA, to name a chief restructuring officer, a receiver, a chief transformation officer, as we call it. Gonzalez: So, sorry to interrupt you, but then you don't need any change in the PROMESA law? You don't need any power to make that happen, because that's the question this committee is doing. What do you need in terms of helping the people of Puerto Rico to recover power? I think that's the main question. If we were a state, we will not have you. If we were a state, we will have full funding in all federal programs, and now that's a problem all territories got. Jaresko: The board believes that in appointing this CTO will help us move more quickly to restoration of power. That is the only reason the board took this position, and they took it at this time. 2:43:30 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): Mayor, thank you very much for being here with us. Could you tell us your annual salary? Mayor Angel Perez Otero: My? Gutierrez: Yes. *Otero: 96,000. Gutierrez: $96,000. Mr. Zamot? What's your annual salary? Noel Zamot: That's a matter of— Gutierrez: I'm sorry? Zamot: Sir, that's a matter of public record. Gutierrez: How much is it? Zamot: I think it's in the record, sir. Gutierrez: Just—can't you tell us how much it is? You know how much you're getting paid. Why are you so reluctant to give us—this is a committee. Just want to know how much you're getting paid. The mayor was very forthcoming. Zamot: The board found a competition competitive compensation of $315,000. 2:55:30 Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL): So, I'll ask Mrs. Jaresko—I didn't get to ask you—what's your annual salary? Natalie Jaresko: $625,000. Gutierrez: $625,000. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Another shutdown, another dingleberry-filled temporary funding law! In this episode, learn about the new law that reopened the government after the 6 hour shutdown by providing funding until March 23 and be one of the few people in the country who will know about the random goodies that hitchhiked their way into law. Miranda Hannah joins Jen for the thank yous. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico Additional Reading Article: Get ready: Here comes another bs* budget commission by Stan Collender, Forbes, March 4, 2018. Report: Let Pentagon carry over FY18 budget boost so money isn't wasted, key lawmaker says by Joe Goud, Defense News, February 22, 2018. Report: Key health care provisions of bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Lexology, February 22, 2018. Article: Can updated tax credits bring carbon capture into the mainstream? by Emma Foehringer Merchant, Green Tech Media, February 22, 2018. Article: The shutdown clock is still ticking and that causes chaos throughout the government by Deirdre Shesgreen, USA Today, February 19, 2018. Report: Congress passes legislation to help foster children weather opioid epidemic by Lizzy Francis, Fatherly, February 13, 2018. Report: USA extends nuclear tax credit deadline, World Nuclear News, February 12, 2018. Report: House passes stopgap spending bill to end government shutdown by Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, February 9, 2018. Report: The health 202: Republicans kill Obamacare's controversial "death panel" by Paige Winfield Cunningham, The Washington Post, February 9, 2018. Article: Why this tax bill may accidentally give huge leverage to the Freedom Caucus next year by Catherine Rampell, The Washington Post, December 20, 2017. Report: CMS announces big expansion to Medicare Advantage value-based insurance design model by Leslie Small, Fierce Healthcare, November 22, 2017. Report: House votes to repeal ObamaCare's Medicare cost-cutting board by Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill, November 2, 2017. Article: The pros and cons of switching to a Medicare Advantage Plan by John Bulliner, Medicare.com, January 24, 2017. Article: A single senator is blocking reform of the foster care system by Ryan Grim, Huffpost, December 6, 2016. Article: A sweeping reform of the foster care system is within reach but hanging by a thread by Ryan Grim, Jason Cherkis, and Laura Barron-Lopez, Huffington Post, December 2, 2016. Article: Congress to consider scaling down group homes for troubled children by Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica, May 20, 2015. Additional Viewing Hearing: A way back home: Preserving families and reducing the need for foster care, US Senate Committee on Finance, August 4, 2015. Hearing: No place to grow up: How to safely reduce reliance on foster care group homes, US Senate Committee on Finance, May 19, 2015. Bill Outline H.R. 1892: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 Division A: Honoring Hometown Heroes Act Sec. 10102: Allows the flag to be flown at half staff when a first responder dies at work. Division B: Supplemental Appropriations, Tax Relief, and Medicaid Changes Relating to Certain Disasters and further extension of continuing appropriations Title I: Gives $2.36 billion to the Department of Agriculture, available until the end of 2019, to pay for "expenses related to crops, trees, bushes, and vine losses" caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and other hurricanes and wildfires that took place in 2017. Companies who have crop insurance can have 85% of their losses covered by our tax money Companies who didn't buy crop insurance can have up to 65% of their losses covered by our money Title I: Gives $14 million to Puerto Rico's food program but says the money is for infrastructure grants for infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria Sec. 20101: Changes the law to allow livestock producers to collect payments for cows they sold at reduced prices, instead of just dead ones, and eliminates the $20 million cap on total payouts for livestock producers. Sec. 20201: Orders the Secretary of Commerce to issue a waiver within 120 days of the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act which prohibit the capture of marine mammals for three infrastructure projects designed to reduce land loss in Louisiana. It says the waiver for the projects "will remain in effect for the duration of the construction, operations and maintenance of the projects. No rule-making, permit, determination, or other condition or limitation shall be required when issuing a waiver pursuant to this section." Title IV: Gives $15 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damages caused by natural disasters $10 billion has to be spend in areas impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria Repairs made in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands "shall be conducted at full Federal expense" Title V: Provides $1.652 billion for the "Disaster Loans Program Account" but $618 million of that can be spend on "administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loan program" Title VI: Adds $23.5 billion to FEMA's "Disaster Relief Fund" Sec. 20604: Adds religious institutions to the definition of a "Private Nonprofit Facility", which makes them eligible to receive tax money for disaster aid services. Sec. 20605: Says the Federal government will pay 90% of the costs for 2017 wildfire disasters. Title XI: Provides $1.374 billion for the Federal highway "Emergency Relief Program", with the Federal government paying 100% of the costs for Puerto Rico Title XI: Provides $28 billion in disaster relief for housing and infrastructure. $11 billion must be spent on areas hit by Hurricane Maria $2 billion of that will be spent on upgrades to electrical power systems Sec. 20102: Allows victims of wildfires in CA to borrow up to $100,000 from their own retirement accounts and pay it back within 3 years. Sec. 20103: Allows companies that had to close due to wildfires to get a credit for up to 40% of their employees' wages, up to $6,000 each. Sec. 20104: Suspends limitations on charitable contributions made before December 31, 2018 for relief efforts in the California wildfire disaster area Sec. 20301: Provides an extra $3.6 billion for Puerto Rico and $106 million for the US Virgin Islands for Medicaid Puerto Rico can get $1.2 billion more if Puerto Rico implements a new process for transmitting data to the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) and if it creates a Medicaid fraud control unit Subdivision 3: Extends 2017 government funding levels until March 23, 2018. Funds the census Forces the sale of $350 million worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Division C: Budgetary and other matters Sec. 30101: Sets the budget limits for 2018 and 2019 2018 $629 billion for defense $579 billion for non-defense 2019 $647 billion for defense $597 billion for non-defense Sec. 30102: Zeroes out the balances on the PAYGO budget scorecard. Sec. 30204: Requires the Secretary of Energy to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve every year from 2022-2025 and 35 million per year in 2026 and 2027. Lowers the amount of oil we must have in reserves from 450 million barrels to 350 million barrels Sec. 30301: Suspends the debt ceiling entirely until March 1, 2019. Division D: Revenue Measures Subtitle A, Subtitle B, and Subtitle C: Extend 31 tax credits Sec. 40402: Extends until 2021 but then phases out tax credits for residential solar electricity, solar water heaters, small wind energy turbines, and geothermal heat pumps. Sec. 40411: Extends until 2022 and then phases out a 30% credit for fiber-optic solar, fuel cell, and small wind energy property, eliminating the credits entirely by 2024. Sec. 40501: Extends and expands tax credits for nuclear power facilities Sec. 41119: Extends an existing tax credit for carbon sequestration technology for 6 years and changes it so that more money is rewarded for each ton of carbon captured and eliminates a cap on how many tons were eligible for credits (it was 75 million tons). Division E: Health and Human Services Extenders Title I: Extends the authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2027 and adds $48 million per year for 2023-2027 for enrollment assistance. Title II: Extends Medicare programs Sec. 50302: Authorizes voluntary telehealth appointments for people receiving at-home dialysis treatments for end state renal disease, as long as they see a doctor in-person every 3 months. Sec. 50321: Expands a test program, which began in 2015 with 7 States, to all States. The program allows privately administered Medicare Advantage plans flexibility to design custom insurance plans for people with certain chronic diseases. Sec. 50322: Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans will be able to offer extra benefits for people with chronic health conditions and uniformity requirements will be waived for those plans. Sec. 50323: Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans can include "telehealth benefits" Sec. 50341: Starting sometime in 2019, some Medicare administrators will be allowed to offer incentives up to $20 to encourage seniors to encourage them to come to appointments with their primary care doctors. The money collected will not be considered taxable income. The Secretary of Health and Human Services can cancel this program at any time for any reason. Sec. 50412: Increased criminal and civil fines for Federal health care program fraud Sec. 50502: Updates the abstinence education program and increases funding from $50 million to $75 million in 2018 and 2019 Sec. 50711: Creates a program funding State efforts to provide mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and parenting counseling to parents in order to prevent their children from being placed in foster care. Sec. 50712: Allows foster care payments to be given to licensed residential treatment facilities if the facility welcomes the child to live with its parent as long as the facility provides parenting classes and family counseling. Sec. 50745: Requires States to require every child-care institution to run fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases on any adult working in their facility. Sec. 50901: Funds Community Health Centers with $3.8 billion for 2018 and $4 billion for 2019 Sec. 52001: Repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board Title XII: Offsets Sec. 53103: Requires Medicaid to count lottery winnings as income when determining Medicaid eligibility Sec. 53105: Rescinds $985 million from the Medicaid Improvement Fund, which is meant to improve oversight of Medicaid contracts and contractors. Sec. 53107: Reduces pay for outpatient physical and occupational therapists for care their assistant's provide to 85 percent of the rate that would have otherwise been paid. Sec. 53114: Increases the percentage that people who make over $500,000 per year pay for Medicare premiums from 80% to 85%. Sec. 53115: Empty's the Medicare Improvement Fund by eliminating all $220 million. Sec. 53116: Accelerates the closing of the prescription drug "donut hole" for seniors by moving up a decrease in out of pocket prescription costs to 25% by one year - it's now 2019 - and by increasing the percentage that drug manufacturers must discount their drugs from 50% to 70%. Sec. 53119: Cuts $1.35 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund over the next 10 years. Division G: Budgetary Effects Exempts the entire law from the PAYGO scorecard and the Senate PAYGO scorecards. Resources Bill Overview: H.J.Res. 45 Pay As You Go Act of 2010 Bill Summary: Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 Bill Scorecard: Pay-As-You-Go Act Scorecard August 4, 2017 Budget Notice: 2017 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act Annual Report Committee on Finance Report: An Examination of Foster Care in the United States and the Use of Privatization Government Debt Info: The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It Government Debt Info: Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding Louisiana State Government: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Infrastructure Projects Visual Resources 20 Years of Congress Budget Prograstination in One Chart Sound Clip Sources Senate Remarks: Senator Paul on Budget Cap Increases in Two-Year Budget, C-SPAN, February 8, 2018. Senator Rand Paul: The bill is nearly 700 pages. It was given to us at midnight last night, and I would venture to say no one has read the bill. No one can thoroughly digest a 700-page bill overnight, and I do think that it does things that we really, really ought to talk about and how we should pay for them. Senator Rand Paul: So the reason I'm here tonight is to put people on the spot. I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, how come you were against President Obama's deficits, and then how come you're for Republican deficits? Isn't that the very definition of intellectual dishonesty? If you were against President Obama's deficits and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy? People need to be made aware. Your senators need to answer people from home, and they need to answer this debate. We should have a full-throated debate. Senator Rand Paul: You realize that this is the secret of Washington. The dirty little secret is the Republicans are loudly clamoring for more military spending, but they can't get it unless they give the Democrats welfare spending, so they raise all the spending. It's a compromise in the wrong direction. We should be compromising in the direction of going toward spending only what comes in. And yet this goes on and on and on. Senator Rand Paul: For the umpteenth time, Congress is going to exceed their budget caps. We had something passed back in 2010. It was called PAYGO. It was supposed to say, if you're going to pay new money, you had to go find an offset somewhere else. You could only pay as you go. It was sort of like a family would think about it. If you're going to spend some more money, you either got to raise your income or you've got to save some money. You know how many times we've evaded it since 2010? Thirty-some-odd times. Senator Rand Paul: So the bill's going to exceed the budget caps by $296 billion. And that's not counting the money they don't count, all right? So these people are really, really clever. Imagine them running their fingers together and saying, how can we hide stuff from the American people? How can we evade the spending caps so we can be even more irresponsible than we appear? So, 296 is the official number; about $300 billion over two years that will be in excess of the budget caps. But there's another $160 billion that's stuck into something called an overseas contingency fund. The budget caps don't apply there. So we're $300 billion for two years over the budget caps; then we're another 160 billion over the caps—they just don't count it. They act as if it doesn't matter; we're just not going to count it. Senator Rand Paul: The spending bill's 700 pages, and there will be no amendments. The debate, although it's somewhat inside baseball that we're having here, is over me having a 15-minute debate, and they say, woe is me; if you get one, everybody'll want an amendment. Well, guess what? That would be called debate. That would be called an open process. That would be called concern for your country—enough to take a few minutes. And they're like, but it's Thursday, and we like to be on vacation on Fridays. And so they clamor. But we've been sitting around all day. It's not like we've had 100 amendments today, we're all worn out, we can't do one more. We're going to have zero amendments—zero, goose egg, no amendments. Senator Rand Paul: So over the past 40 years, four times have we actually done the right thing—passed 12 individual appropriation bills, bundled them together, have a budget, and try to do the right thing. You know, there's no guarantee that everybody'll be wise in their spending, but it's got to be better; it can't be worse. What do we do instead? It's called a continuing resolution. We glom all the bills together in one bill, like we've done tonight—Republicans and Democrats clasping hands—and nobody's going to look at it. Nobody's going to reform the spending. As a consequence, wasteful spending is riddled throughout your government. Only four times in 40 years have we done the appropriation process the way we're supposed to. Senator Rand Paul: The last thing I'll get to is something called the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is something that has been a limitation on how much we spend, and we have to vote on it, and it's an unpleasant vote. And so they try to either do it for a long period of time or try to stretch it beyond elections. So this bill, the 700-page bill that no one read, that will continue all the spending and will not reform your government and is irresponsible—the one we will pass later tonight—that 700-page bill also allows the debt ceiling to go up. Historically, we would let the debt ceiling—our borrowing limit—we would let it go up a dollar amount. We'd say, well, we've got to borrow money, and it looks like we're going to need a trillion dollars. But you know the way they do it now? It's like everything else around here: We bend, break the rules, and then somehow there's a little bit of deviousness to it. The debt ceiling will go up in an unspecified amount. So as much as you can borrow between now and November, go for it. So there is no limitation. The debt ceiling becomes not a limitation at all. Senator Rand Paul: And the media doesn't even get it. The media does you such a disservice. They can't even understand what's going on sometimes. They're like, bipartisanship has broken out. Hallelujah! Republicans and Democrats are getting along. And in reality, they should be telling you, look for your wallet; check your pants to make sure they haven't taken your wallet, because when both parties are happy and both parties are getting together and doing stuff, guess what? They were usually looting the Treasury. And that's what this bill does. It's going to loot the Treasury. It spends money we don't have. We will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. Press Briefing: Presidential Remarks on Federal Spending, C-Span, June 9, 2009. Community Suggestions Video: The Political Vigilante: Graham Learns About MMT Part 1 Video: The Political Vigilante: Graham Learns About MMT Part 2 See more community suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Cold War: Part Duex In early February, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva testified to Congress about two recently released war strategy documents: The National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review. In this episode, hear some of the most powerful people in the world discuss their plans to reboot the Cold War, including an extremely expensive plan, which has already begun, to replace the United States entire nuclear weapons arsenal. Executive Producer: Stephen McMahan Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 CD067: What Do We Want in Ukraine? CD093: Our Future in War Short Story Long Podcast Appearance Additional Reading Article: Trump's favorite general: Can Mattis check an impulsive president and still retain his trust? by Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan, The Washington Post, February 7, 2018. Report: Beijing hits back at US defence strategy and 'cold war mindset' by Kinling Lo, South China Morning Post, January 20, 2018, Report: A top secret desert assembly plant starts ramping up to build Northrop's B-21 bomber by Ralph Vartabedian, W.J. Hennigan, and Samantha Masunaga, The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2017. Article: Lockheed close to massive F-35 fighter jet deal with 11 nations by Thom Patterson, CNN Money, June 19, 2017. Article: Russian lawmaker: We would use nukes if US or NATO enters Crimea by Patrick Tucker, Defense One, May 28, 2017. Report: Russia is now the world's third largest military spender by Ivana Kottasova, CNN Money, April 24, 2017. Article: The F-35 may carry one of the US's most polarizing nuclear weapons sooner than expected by Alex Lockie, Business Insider, January 12, 2017. Article: Henry Kissinger's war crimes are central to the divide between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders by Dan Froomkin, The Intercept, February 12, 2016. Review: Hillary Clinton reviews Henry Kissinger's 'World Order' by Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Washington Post, September 4, 2014. Resources Congressional Budget Office: Approaches for Managing the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2017 to 2046 Congressional Research Service: Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Defense.gov: 2018 Summary of the National Defense Strategy Indictment: Internet Research Agency Indictment Media.defense.gov: 2018 Nuclear Posture Review OpenSecrets.org: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Profile for 2016 Election Cycle OpenSecrets.org: General Dynamics Organization Summary OpenSecrets.org: Lobbyists Representing General Dynamics, 2017 OpenSecrets.org: Northrop Grumman Organization Summary OpenSecrets.org: Northrop Grumman Lobbying Info Book: World Order by Henry Kissinger Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: National Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review, C-SPAN, House Armed Services Committee, February 6, 2018. Witnesses James Mattis - Secretary of the Department of Defense General Paul Silva - Vice Chair of the Joints Chiefs of Staff 12:25 Defense Secretary James Mattis: To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harm's way, in effect, signing a blank check payable to the American people with their lives. They do so despite Congress' abrogation of its constitutional responsibility to provide sufficient stable funding. Our military have been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1,000 days during the past decade. These men and women hold the line for America while lacking this most fundamental congressional support: a predictable budget. Congress mandated—rightfully mandated—this National Defense Strategy—the first one in a decade—and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as I testify before you this morning we are again on the verge of a government shutdown, or, at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained, predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time because no strategy can survive, as you pointed out, Chairman, without the funding necessary to resource it. 19:15 Defense Secretary James Mattis: Our second line of effort is to strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach to security and prosperity from the Greatest Generation, and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies who carry their fair share is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in World War II, Americans have carried a disproportionate share of the global-defense burden while others recovered. Today the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up, as demonstrated by more than 70 nations and international organizations participating in the Defeat ISIS campaign and again in the 40-some nations standing shoulder to shoulder in NATO's Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Most NATO allies are also increasing their defense budgets, giving credence to the value of democracies standing together. 24:33 Defense Secretary James Mattis: As Senator McCain said last week, since the end of the Cold War, we have let our nuclear capabilities atrophy under the false belief that the era of great power competition was over. As the new National Defense Strategy rightfully acknowledges, we now face the renewed threat of competition from Russia and China, and we cannot ignore their investments in nuclear weapons in addition to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the nuclear triad—comprised of silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft, and nuclear submarines—is the most strategically sound means of ensuring nuclear deterrence. To remain effective, however, we must recapitalize our Cold War legacy nuclear-deterrence forces, continuing a modernization program initiated during the previous administration. 27:05 Defense Secretary James Mattis: We need Congress to lift the defense spending caps and support the budget for our military of 700 billion for this fiscal year and 716 billion for next fiscal year. Let me be clear: as hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act's defense spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The Budget Control Act was purposely designed to be so injurious that it would force Congress to pass necessary budgets. It was never intended to be the solution. 34:50 General Paul Selva: Two supplemental capabilities recommended in the Nuclear Posture Review—the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and a modification of a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads—would enhance deterrence by ensuring that no adversary under any set of circumstances can perceive an advantage through the use of a limited nuclear escalation or other strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities will not lower the threshold at which the U.S. would employ nuclear weapons; rather, it will raise the nuclear threshold for potential adversaries, making the use of nuclear weapons less likely. 35:45 General Paul Selva: It is important to note that the National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review both make the assumption that the military will receive timely, predictable, and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As General Mattis has emphasized, we in uniform appreciate the support of this committee and the Congress, and we trust that the Congress will provide the funding needed to turn these strategies into reality. 1:03:05 Representative Joe Wilson (SC): Secretary Mattis, your Nuclear Posture Review, NPR, recommends that U.S. develop two supplemental nuclear capabilities: first, a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, SLBM; and second, a sea-launched cruise missile. Why are these needed for deterrence and assurance? And following on that, some are arguing that they lower the threshold for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons. Do you believe that the addition of these capabilities to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is an increase or decrease the likelihood of a nuclear war? And another angle: why should we need a low-yield SLBM when we already have a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb? Are these capabilities redundant? Defense Secretary James Mattis: Congressman, I don't believe it lowers the threshold at all. What it does, it makes very clear that we have a deterrent. If the Russians choose to carry out what some of their doctrine people have promoted, their political leaders have promoted, which would be to employ a low-yield nuclear weapon in a conventional fight in order to escalate to de-escalate; in other words, to escalate to victory and then de-escalate. We want to make certain they recognize that we can respond in kind. We don't have to go with a high-yield weapon; thus, the deterrent effort stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold to use nuclear weapons. On the sea-launched cruise missile, as you know, we have an ongoing issue with Russia's violation of the INF. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with, that we want Russia back into compliance. We do not want to forgo the INF, but at the same time, we have options if Russia continues to go down this path. Discussion: Kissinger and Schultz on Global Challenges, C-SPAN, Senate Armed Services Committee, January 25, 2018. Witnesses: Henry Kissinger National Security Advisor & Secretary of State in Nixon & Ford Administrations George Shultz Secretary of State in Reagan Administration Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State in the first term of the George W. Bush administration 12:45 Henry Kissinger: The international situation facing the United States is unprecedented. What is occurring is more than a coincidence of individual crises. Rather, it is a systemic failure of world order, which is gathering momentum and which has led to an erosion of the international system rather than its consolidation, a rejection of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutual trade benefits without coercion, which are the hallmark of the existing system are all under some kind of strain. Compounding this dynamism is the pace of technological development, whose extraordinary progress threatens to outstrip our strategic and moral imagination and makes the strategic equation tenuous unless major efforts are made to sustain it. 19:45 Henry Kissinger: There is no doubt that the military capacity of China, as well as its economic capacity, is growing, and there have been challenges from Russia which have to be met, especially in Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. And this raises these fundamental questions: What is the strategic relationship between these countries vis-a-vis the prospect of peace? Is their strength comparable enough to induce restraint? Are their values compatible enough to encourage an agreed legitimacy? These are the challenges that we face. The balance of power must be maintained, but it is also necessary to attempt a strategic dialogue that prevents the balance of power from having to be tested. This is the key issue in our relationship. 25:10 George Shultz: And I take the occasion to particularly underline one of the things that Henry brought out in his testimony, that is the concern we must have about nuclear proliferation. As you remember in the Reagan period, we worked hard. President Reagan thought nuclear weapons were immoral, and we worked hard to get them reduced. And we had quite a lot of success. And in those days, people seemed to have an appreciation of what would be the result of a nuclear weapon if ever used. I fear people have lost that sense of dread. And now we see everything going in the other direction, nuclear proliferation. The more countries have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is one's going to go off somewhere, and the more fissile materials lying around—anybody who gets fissile material can make a weapon fairly easily. So this is a major problem. It can blow up the world. So I think we have to get at it. And the right way to start is what Henry said, is somehow to be able to have a different kind of relationship with Russia. After all, Russia and the United States have the bulk of all the weapons. 31:20 George Shultz: First, let me talk about the economy. What is happening as a result of these forces is de-globalization. This is already happening. This is not something for the future. The reason is that it's becoming more and more possible to produce the things you want close to where you are. So the advantages of low labor costs are disappearing. And the more you produce things near where you are, the less you need shipping, and it has a big impact on energy, and it has a huge impact on the countries that are providing low-cost labor and a huge impact on places like ourselves which will wind up being able to produce these things near where we are. It's a revolution. And a revolution in the economy has all sorts of security implications that need to be thought about. But this is a very big deal. 33:30 George Shultz: Robotics, 3-D printing, and artificial intelligence are driving manufacturers to reconsider not only how and what they make but where they make it. The world is on the very front end of a big shift from labor to automation. Robot sales are expected to reach $400,000 annually in 2018. This estimate does not account for the newly developed cobots, that is, collaborative robots. They assist human workers and, thus, dramatically increase human productivity. There are other things about all this that I won't go into which underline it, but the new technologies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States. The United States has lost manufacturing jobs every year from 1998 to 2009, a total of 8 million jobs. Over the last 6 years, it regained about a million of them. With the cost of living no longer a significant advantage, it makes little sense to manufacture components in Southeast Asia, assemble them in China, and then ship them to the rest of the world when the same item can either be manufactured by robots or printed where it will be used. So this is a huge revolution taking place. It also underlines the enhanced ability to protect your intellectual property because you don't have to ship it around. 35:35 George Shultz: You want to look at the dramatic improvements in nano-energetics, artificial intelligence, drones, and 3-D printing. They're producing a revolution of small, smart, and cheap weapons that will redefine the battlefield. Open-source literature says nano-aluminum created ultra high burn rates which give nano-explosives four to ten times the power of TNT. The obvious result, small platforms will carry a very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones. And drones can be manufactured easily, and you can have a great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm armed with lethal equipment. Any fixed target is a real target. So an airfield where our Air Force stores planes is a very vulnerable target. A ship at anchor is a vulnerable target. So you've got to think about that in terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone—talking about getting a drone to the area of where its target is, but that sure could hit a specific target. At that point, the optical systems guided by artificial intelligence could use on-board, multi-spectral imaging to find a target and guide the weapons. It is exactly that autonomy that makes the technologic convergence a threat today. Because such drones will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will not be vulnerable to jamming. Not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platforms will also be able to operate in very large numbers. 38:48 George Shultz: I think there's a great lesson here for what we do in NATO to contain Russia because you can deploy these things in boxes so you don't even know what they are and on trucks and train people to unload quickly and fire. So it's a huge deterrent capability that is available, and it's inexpensive enough so that we can expect our allies to pitch in and get them for themselves. 40:10 George Shultz: The creative use of swarms of autonomous drones to augment current forces would strongly and relatively cheaply reinforce NATO, as I said, that deterrence. If NATO assists frontline states in fielding large numbers of inexpensive autonomous drones that are pre-packaged in standard 20-foot containers, the weapons can be stored in sites across the countries under the control of reserve forces. If the weapons are pre-packaged and stored, the national forces can quickly deploy the weapons to delay a Russian advance. So what's happening is you have small, cheap, and highly lethal replacing large, expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity, and it is massively important to take it into account in anything that you are thinking about doing. 54:10 George Shultz: Well, I read what I guess was an early version—somehow it was sent to me—of the national-security strategy. And I liked the beginning of it because it talked about our commitment to getting rid of nuclear weapons. But as you read on, it almost sounded a little bit as though there might be this or that occasion where we would use nuclear weapons. And this notion of using them that is spreading around is deeply disturbing to me. Video: Pinky and the Brain - The Really Great Dictator, March 6, 2011. Video: War on Iraq Breaking News - Shock & Awe Iraq, Sky News, October 20, 2006. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

We're doing it live! In this episode, recorded in front of a live audience at Podfest in Orlando, Florida, learn about the concerning permissions granted to the war departments in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act which are designed to antagonize Russia. Also, a special guest, Ryan DeLisle, joins Jen on her hotel patio to chat and say thank you to the listeners who keep this podcast in existence. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 CD067: What Do We Want in Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD136: Building WWIII CD156: Sanctions Book Recommendation The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas P.M. Barnett Bills H.R. 2810: 2018 NDAA: CLICK HERE for highlights and links to provisions in the 2018 NDAA Additional Reading Report: Russian Su-25 jet downed in Syria, pilot killed - Defense Ministry, RT.com, February 3, 2018. Report: Poland wants U.S. sanctions to cover Nord Stream 2 by Reuters Staff, Reuters, January 29, 2018. Article: How Ukraine's president fooled Joe Biden by Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View, January 25, 2018. Report: U.S. says it will provide Ukraine with 'defensive' aid by Reuters Staff, Reuters, December 22, 2017. Report: U.S. demands NATO action on Russian missile by Matthias Gebauer, Christoph Schult, and Klaus Wiegrefe, Spiegel Online, December 8, 2017. Article: There are four times as many U.S. troops in Syria as previously acknowledged by the Pentagon by Dan Lamothe, The Washington Post, December 6, 2017. Article: US talked about danger of "Nord Stream-2" for Ukraine and Europe, Front News, December 1, 2017. Report: Russia held a big military exercise this week. Here's why the U.S. is paying attention by Michael Birnbaum and David Filipov, The Washington Post, September 23, 2017. Video: NATO: Russia exercise resembles "preparation for a big war", CBS News, September 18, 2017. Article: A Russian helicopter accidentally fired on spectators during war games, state tv says by David Filipov, The Washington Post, September 9, 2017. Article: Russian gas pipelines to go ahead despite U.S. sanctions by Oksana Kobzeva and Alissa de Carbonnel, Reuters, August 3, 2017. Article: Congress just gave Trump the authority to send surface-to-air missiles to Syrian fighters by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The Washington Post, December 6, 2016. Article: Congress authorizes Trump to arm Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles by Julian Pecquet, Al-Monitor, December 2, 2016. Report: 16% of natural gas consumed in Europe flows through Ukraine by U.S. EIA: Today in Energy, The Energy Collective, March 15, 2014. Article: Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, BBC, February 7, 2014. Report: John McCain went to Ukraine and stood on stage with a man accused of being an anti-semitic neo-nazi by Adam Taylor, Business Insider, December 16, 2013. Press Release: Statement by IMF Mission to Ukraine, International Monetary Fund, October 31, 2013. Timeline: How President Obama handled Syria by Haley Bissegger, The Hill, September 15, 2013. Resources Gazprom: Nord Stream 2 Significance Gazprom: Nord Stream Overview Nord Stream 2: Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Info US Pacific Command: USPACOM Area of Responsibility Map Sound Clip Sources Remarks by Secretary of State: Remarks on the Way Forward for the United States Regarding Syria, U.S. Department of State, January 17, 2018. Discussion: Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden; Council on Foreign Affairs; January 23, 2018. Speakers: Richard Haass: President of the Council on Foreign Relations Joe Biden: former Vice President of the United States 00:06:15 Joe Biden: they cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest. 00:20:00 Biden: They're in a situation where they're an oil-based economy. You have Gazprom going from a market value of something like $350 billion to $50 billion in the last 10 years. What do you do if you are a democratic leader of Russia? What do you do? How do you provide jobs for your people? Where do you go? How do you build that country, unless you engage the West? 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there's no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn't be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What's an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? Biden: I'll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Hearing: Authorization for Use of Military Force; Senate Foreign Relations Committee; October 30, 2017. 8:00 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): In his last War Powers Resolution letter to Congress, the president identified the following 19 countries where U.S. military personnel were deployed and equipped for combat: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo. Hearing: Securing Peace After the Fall of ISIL; Oversight and Investigations Committee; October 3, 2017. 1:47:00 Joseph Pennington: I would also point out the support that we have provided to the Iraqi government in terms of getting its fiscal house in order on the economic side, the economic pressures that Iraq has been under because of the conflict, the presence of ISIS, the collapse of oil prices, the humanitarian crisis, that created an economic crisis both in Baghdad and Erbil of massive proportions. We and other G7 partners stepped forward to fill the fiscal gap. We, through a sovereign loan guarantee, a billion-dollar sovereign loan guarantee, which the Iraqis, then, followed up by borrowing in the private market that would not have been possible without our support, and getting a deal with the IMF, which provided the additional financing necessary to close that gap and keep the government on its feet during this time of tremendous challenge. Again, would not have been possible without U.S. support, and that the IMF program has been the key to starting the government on a path of significant economic reform, which they are complying with the conditions of the IMF program. Panel: U.S. Global Leadership Role; Aspen Institute; August 4, 2017. 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We're putting battalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic states and in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus that newspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000 tanks—I think I've got that number right— Unknown Speaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanks than Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to be careful that we don't get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with Russia and not have the resources to back it up. Debate: House Debate on Russia, Iran, and North Korea Sanctions; U.S. House of Representatives; July 25, 2017. 39:40 Tim Ryan (OH): What's happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn't happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they're not so dependent on Russia. We've got to have the sanctions, but we've also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they're not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Confirmation Hearing: Defense Secretary Confirmation Hearing; Senate Armed Services Committee; January 12, 2017. 00:20:15 Sen. McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We've not only put America first, but we've done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. It's the global striking power of America's armed forces that must deter or thwart their ambitions. Too many Americans, too many Americans seem to have forgotten this in recent years. Too many have forgotten that our world order is not self-sustaining. Too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. In short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters—having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and, at times, using it. Fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that America is weak and distracted, and that has only emboldened our adversaries to challenge the current world order. 00:51:20 McCain: You are a distinguished student of history, and, as we are all aware, that following World War II, a world order was established which has held for, basically, the last 70 years. Do you believe that that world order is now under more strain than it's ever been? Sen. Mattis: I think it's under the biggest attack since World War II, sir, and that's from Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea. Presidential Address: Islamic State Threat, C-SPAN, September 10, 2014. Daily Briefing: Nuland Tape Press Conference; State Department; February 6, 2014. Jen Psaki, State Department Spokesperson 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I'm not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there's a recording out there, but I'm not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It's not an accusation I'm making. I'm just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can't even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn't say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you're allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: "Yes," okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? Phone Conversation: Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation; February 4, 2014. Press Conference: Senator John McCain on Ukraine at the Atlantic Council; C-Span; December 19, 2013. 00:09:30 McCain: In recent months, President Putin has pulled out all the stops to coerce, intimidate, and threaten Ukraine away from Europe. Russia has blocked large amounts of Ukrainian trade, especially chocolate. It has threatened to cut off its gas supplies in the dead of winter, which it has done before. And according to Ukrainian officials we met in Kyiv, President Putin threatened President Yanukovich with far worse economic retaliation if he signed the Association Agreement with the EU. 00:16:45 McCain: If Ukraine's political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend—from holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine's long-term economic health and sustainable development. Decisions such as these are for Ukrainians to make—no one else—and if they request our assistance, we should provide it where possible. Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensable for Ukraine's future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine's economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. Presidential Address: Use of Force in Syria, C-SPAN, September 10, 2013 Debate: British House of Commons Debate on Syria, C-SPAN, August 29, 2013. Discussion: Beyond NAFTA and GATT, C-Span, April 20, 1994. Arthur Dunkel, Director General of the UN 26:00:00: Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the sadly planned world; the sadly planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension - political tension and even worse than that." Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Register for Podfest: Pay It Forward January 19th was a big day for the 115th Congress: Part of the government ran out of funding and some spying authorities also expired. In this episode, learn about FISA reauthorization law that contained a giant loophole that will allow previously inadmissible information to be used against you in court, get all the details about the 69 hour shutdown that resulted from an attempt by the Democratic Party to … do something for the Dreamers, get enraged by the dingleberries attached to the fourth temporary funding law of this fiscal year, and discover why Jen is angry with just about everyone right now. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD165: Christmas Dingleberries CD098: The USA Freedom Act Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 S. 139: FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 Sec. 101: Requires the Attorney General to create procedures for searching through the database that are consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The procedures must require that records of the query term used be kept Allows the FBI to search through the database and access the content of communications acquired via foreign surveillance for criminal investigations unrelated to national security if they get a court order. The FBI doesn't need to get the court order if the FBI determines "there is a reasonable belief that such contents could assist in mitigating or eliminating a threat to life or serious bodily harm." The new rules are effective January 1, 2018 Sec. 102: Information acquired via the foreign surveillance program can be used against us in court if the FBI gets a FISA court order, if the Attorney General says it is related to national security, OR the criminal proceeding involves crimes including: Death Kidnapping Serious bodily injury An offense against a minor Destruction of critical infrastructure ("assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that in incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.") Cybersecurity Transnational crimes, including drug and/or human trafficking A determination made by the Attorney General can not be reviewed by the courts. Sec. 110: Prohibits punishment for FBI and intelligence community contractors who report violations of law to certain authorities inside the government and Congressional committees. Sec. 201: Delays the repeal of authorities granted in Title VII of the FISA Amendments Act until December 31, 2023. The authorities allow the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to target people non-Americans outside the United States Sec. 202: Increases the penalty for unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from a fine and/or 1 year in prison to a fine and/or 5 years in prison. H.R. 195: Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018; HEALTHY KIDS Act; Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 Division A: Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 Prohibits copies of the Federal Register from being printed for members of Congress unless they request it. CBO says this will end the distribution of about 1,000 copies of the 300-page Federal Register that are distributed daily for free, saving ~$1 million per year. Division B: Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 Extends 2017 government funding levels until February 8, 2018. Allows the ~$4 billion appropriated for missile defense in the last CR to be spent by the intelligence agencies on things that were NOT specifically authorized by Congress Division C: HEALTHY KIDS Act Full Title: "Helping Ensure Access for Little Ones, Toddlers, and Hopeful Youth by Keeping Insurance Delivery Stable Act" Funds the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2023 at the following rates: 2018: $21.5 billion 2019: $22.6 billion 2020: $23.7 billion 2021: $24.8 billion 2022: $25.9 billion 2023: $5.7 billion + $20.2 billion = $25.9 billion The 2018 funds that were already appropriated are eliminated. Division D: Suspension of certain health-related taxes Sec. 4001: Delays implementation of the medical device tax until 2020 Sec. 4002: Delays implementation of the tax on high premium insurance plans until 2022 Sec. 4003: Suspends the annual fee on health insurance companies for 2019 & 2020. Division E: Budgetary Effects The budgetary effects of the extension of the CHIP program and the suspension of health industry taxes will not be counted in the PAYGO budget. Additional Reading Article: Top Republican warns that under new spending bill "the intelligence community could expend funds as it sees fit" by Alex Emmons and Ryan Grim, The Intercept, January 22, 2018. Article: Timeline: DACA, the Trump administration and a government shutdown by Miriam Valverde, Polifact, January 22, 2018. Report: Senate votes to end shutdown by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, January 22, 2018. Article: There's a surprise in the Government Funding Bill: More tax cuts by Margot Sanger-Katz and Jim Tankersley, The New York Times, January 22, 2018. Article: The government shutdown: We've been here before, and it lasted weeks by Steve Hendrix, The Washington Post, January 20, 2018. Article: House spending bill changes law to let Trump administration secretly shift intelligence money by Ryan Grim, The Intercept, January 17, 2018. Article: Yes, marches can make a difference. It depends on these three factors by Shom Mazumder, The Washington Post, January 27, 2017. Resources Center for National Security Studies: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Congressional Record: Senate Proceedings Monday, January 22, 2018 *Page 7: Sen. Cochran's reason for the "blank check" provision Govtrack House Vote: S.139: Rapid DNA Act of 2017 Govtrack Senate Vote: S.139: FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 Twitter Poll Who do you blame for the #GovernmentShutdown? — CSPAN (@cspan) January 20, 2018 C-SPAN poll - Over 208,000 votes 45% blame Trump 41% blame Congressional D's 14% blame Congressional R's Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Senate Session, Part 2, January 22, 2018. 1:08:40 Sen. Richard Burr: The vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and I were notified when the House CR appeared that there was language in it that was different than in the past. The language in section 148 of the CR is of concern to the Intelligence Committee. Let me just read the language: Sec. 148. Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriation Act, 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–96) may be obligated and expended notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947. This language is troublesome for the committee because it would authorize the intelligence community to spend funds ''notwithstanding'' the law that requires prior authorization by the Senate Intelligence Committee or by the House Intelligence Committee. 1:11:00 Sen. Richard Burr: As a result, this language can erode the powers of the authorizing committee. Effectively,the intelligence community could ex-pend funds as it sees fit without an authorization bill in place and with no statutory direction indicating that an authorization bill for 2018 is forth-coming. 1:16:30 Sen. Mark Warner: If this exemption is granted, you could potentially have an administration—any administration—go off and take on covert activities, for example,with no ability for our committee,which spends the time and has the oversight, to say timeout or to say we actually disagree with that policy. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Right before Christmas, the government was temporarily funded for the fourth time this fiscal year, but this latest funding law came with a few surprises. In this episode, a feisty Jen outlines the law to expose a favor to the war industry, damage to the Affordable Care Act, a bad sign for the Children's Health Insurance Program, a giant loophole that paved the way for a new mountain of government debt, and more. You'll also learn about an "uncontroversial" bill that reduces accountability for foreign fighters who abuse women and that showers literal gifts upon a secretive Drug War commission. But it's not all bad news! There's also a reason for hope. Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD161: Veterans Choice Program Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Register for Podfest: Pay It Forward Bills H.R. 1370: Continuing Appropriations Act, Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, CHIP and Public Health Funding Extension Act, 2018 Division A Section 1001: Extends 2017 funding levels until January 19, 2018 Section 1002: Delays the repeal of FISA warrantless spying authorities until January 19, 2018. Division B Title I: Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriates over $3.8 billion for emergency ballistic missile equipment and research. Title II: Missile Construction Enhancements Appropriates $200 million, available until September 30, 2022 to construct an emergency missile field in Alaska Title III: General Provisions Section 2001: Clarifies that the money in this law for the Department of Defense will be in addition to the money it will be appropriated for 2018. Section 2002: For the extra money given to the military in this law, this section creates an exception to the rule that says that no new projects can be started with it. Section 2003: Clarifies that this money is being appropriated as an emergency requirement. Division C: Health Provisions Title I:: Public Health Extenders Section 3101: Appropriates $550 million for community health centers and $65 million for the National Health Service Corps for the first half of 2018 Section 3102: Appropriates $37.5 million for a program for type I diabetes for the first half of 2018 Section 3103:: Cuts [the authorization for the Prevention and Public Health Fund](http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:300u-11%20edition:prelim) - 2019: Authorization decreases from $900 million to $800 million (was originally supposed to be $2 billion annually) - 2020 & 2021: Authorization decreases from $1 billion to $800 million - 2022: Authorization decreases from $1.5 billion to $1.25 billion. Title II: Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Section 3201: Appropriates $2.85 billion for the Children's Health Insurance Program through March 31, 2018, which is a cut from previous appropriations. Division D: VA Choice Section 4001: Appropriates an additional $2.1 billion for the Veteran's Choice Program. Division E: Budgetary Effects Section 5001: The budgetary effects of the money for CHIP and VA Choice on the PAYGO scorecard will not be counted. Section 5002: The effects of the tax bill (the "Reconciliation Act" authorized by H. Con. Res. 71) will not be considered in the PAYGO budget. S.371: Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017, Improvements Act Section 2: Orders a bunch of foreign policy related reports to be given to the Appropriations Committees in the House and the Senate. Section 3: Changes the original law signed in December 2016 to remove the requirement for "swift and effective disciplinary action against" police or troops of UN countries who sexually exploit or abuse people during their peacekeeping missions. In it's place, the requirement will be that the countries will have to "appropriately hold accountable" their personnel, which is left undefined. Section 10: Allows members of the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission to "solicit, accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of money, services, or property, both real and personal, for the purpose of carrying out any duty, power, or authority of the Commission." Additional Reading Article: Retirements of veteran Republicans fuel GOP fears of losing House majority by Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, January 10, 2018. Article: Drug policy: Our unfinished business in the Americas by Reps. Eliot L. Engel and Matt Salmon, Huffington Post Report: Congress rushes Pentagon $4b for missile defense improvements by Marcus Weisgerber, Defense One, December 22, 2017. Report: House, Senate pass CR with emergency funding for missile defense, Navy ship repair by Justin Doubleday, Inside Defense, December 21, 2017. Article: Collision-damaged USS McCain arrives at Yokosuka for repairs by Leon Cook, Stars and Stripes, December 13, 2017. Article: USS Fitzgerald departs Yokosuka for Mississippi from U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs, America's Navy, December 8, 2017. Article: Could the U.S. actually shoot down a North Korean missile? by Larlsa Epatko, PBS, November 28, 2017. Article: Trump administration proposes $2.1 billion expansion of Fort Greely missile-defense base by Tim Ellis, AlaskaPublic.org, November 14, 2017. Press Release: AK delegation applauds major missile defense increase in Trump administration's budget request by Matt Shuckerow, DonYoung.house.gov, November 6, 2017. Report: Counternarcotics: Overview of U.S. efforts in the western hemisphere, U.S. Governtment Accountability Office, October 13, 2017. Article: Fort Greely stands firm in face of North Korean threat by Sean Kimmons, Department of Defense, October 11, 2017. Article: Doomsday Deflector: What is the THAAD missile system, where is the US program deployed and how does it work? by Patrick Knox, The Sun, September 4, 2017. News Report: Hudson Institute congratulates John Walters on congressional appointment to Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission by Hudson Institute, PR Newswire, June 29, 2017. Article: There's a flaw in the homeland missile defense system. The Pentagon sees no need to fix it by David Willman, The LA Times, February 26, 2017. Press Release: Engel measure to reassess drug policy headed to president's desk, Committee on Foreign Affairs, December 10, 2016. Article: The US government is literally arming the world, and nobody's even talking about it by William D. Hartung, Mother Jones, July 30, 2016. Article: U.S. missile defense system is 'simply unable to protect public,' report says by David Willman, The LA Times, July 14, 2016. Article: A test of America's homeland missile defense system found a problem. Why did the Pentagon call it a success? by David William, The LA Times, July 6, 2017. Report: Standard Missile-3 by Zach Berger, Missile Defense Advocacy, June 2017. Article: 'Double down' in fight against opioid abuse by Mary Bono, USA Today, March 6, 2017. Report: Assessment of DOD's reports on status of efforts and options for improving homeland missile defense, U.S. Government Accountability Office, February 17, 2016. Article: Bring back the war on drugs by William Bennett and John P. Walters, Boston Globe, September 9, 2015 Report: Fort Greely to get $50 million toward missile defense system by The Associated Press, Army Times, December 16, 2014. Article: Does missile defense actually work? by Roger A. Mola, Airspacemag.com, April 9, 2013. Resources Budget of the U.S. Government: Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Defense: Budget Amendment Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Defense: FY 2018 Budget Amendment Department of Defense: Military Installations Overview Fort Greely, Alaska Department of the Navy: FY 2018 Emergency Contingency Operations Amendments OpenSecrets.org: Boeing Co. Client Profile 2017 OpenSecrets.org: Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting Profile 2017 OpenSecrets.org: Raytheon Co. Client Profile 2017 Twitter Post @JordanUhl: Members of Congress Not Seeking Reelection Visual References Boeing Co Stock Summary Sound Clip Sources Hearing: U.S. Defense Strategy in South Asia; House Committee on Armed Services; October 3, 2017 C-Span Video Witnesses: - Joseph F. Dunford Jr. - James N. Mattis 57:25 James Mattis: I think the most important thing is that we get budget predictability and certainty, because without that, we cannot take the—adjust our forces and get predictability into our budgets that permits us to gain the best bang for the buck, to put it bluntly. We're going into the ninth year with a continuing resolution. As you know, I cannot make new starts under that, even if the cyber domain or the space domain require that we do new things we've not had to do before to maintain our competitive edge. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

We're officially halfway through the 115th Congress and we will soon get our next chance to hire better representation in 2018. In this special episode, recorded in front of a live audience, meet Jen's friend who is running for Congress. In this episode, hear how Jessica Morse made the decision to run for Congress, discover what the experience of running has been like, and learn where all that campaign cash goes. This is a hopeful episode! Election time is almost here! Celebrate the possibilities that lay before us in the last Congressional Dish of 2017. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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! How To Invest in Jessica Morse's Campaign Jessica's website: https://www.morse4congress.com/ Follow Jessica on Twitter: @Morse4America Like Jessica's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Morse4America/ Follow Jessica on Instagram: @Morse4America Follow Jessica on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-morse Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes (featuring Tom McClintock) CD022: Crippling the Regulators CD065: Federal Intervention in California Water Rights CD069: Giving Away Your Land Additional Reading Article: Democrats see opportunity in a strongly Republican California congressional district by Chris Megerian, LA Times, November 19, 2017. Article: McClintock is trying to have it both ways with the GOP tax cut. Don't buy it: This plan serves Koch Industries by Jessica Morse, The Sacramento Bee, November 15, 2017. Article: Will McClintock finally face a real challenge? by Marc Boyd, The Modesto Bee, September 29, 2017. Editorial: That's not anarchy, Rep. McClintock, it's democracy by The Editorial Board, The Sacramento Bee, February 6, 2017. Blog: Endorsement of Donald Trump for President by Tom McClintock, May 21, 2016. Article: Arizona congressman Trent Franks elected by Samantha Lachman, The Huffington Post, November 4, 2014. Report: 30 members, 1 Senator running unopposed by Clark Mindock, Roll Call, November 3, 2014. Article: How to take back the House? Great candidates! Meet Jessica Morse in CA who is taking on McClintock by EducatetheMasses, Daily Kos, September 9, 2009. Resources American's For Prosperity Scorecard: Rep. Tom McClintock App Download: BillTrack50 CA District 04 2018 Race Info: OpenSecrets.org CA District 04 Fact Page: GovTrack.us Candidate Information: Trent Franks Rep. Report Card : Rep. Tom McClintlock 2016 Voting Record: Rep. Tom McClintock Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called "net neutrality" regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker's plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 H.R. 3989: Amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 S. 652 (104th): Telecommunications Acto of 1996 Additional Reading Article: House foreign surveillance turf war heats up as law sunset nears by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: Colorado warns families to be prepared in case congress doesn't come through on CHIP funding by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: Congress confronts jam-packed December with shutdown deadline looming by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: States prepare to shut down children's health programs if congress doesn't act by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: What is net neutrality? by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: Will the Telecommunications Act get a much-needed update as it turns 21? by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: Cable tv price increases have beaten inflation every single year for 20 years by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: 20 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rekindling Congress's political will by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: The city that was saved by the internet by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: This was 1995: A pop culture snapshot by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: Why your internet prices are bound to go up by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: In a nutshell: Net neutrality, CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: AT&T buys DirectTV for $48.5 billion by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: Legal gymnastics ensue in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: Comcast completes NBC Universal merger, Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: H.R.1555 Communications Act of 1995 Bill Roll Call: H.R. 3989 Vote Roll Call FCC Resources: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mission Statement: AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby Network Map: Community Networks Publication: Public Law 104 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Publication: The USA Liberty Act Report: Akamai's State of the Internet 2017 Report: FCC Fact Sheet Support Page: AT&T HBO Channels Visual References Cable Prices vs. Inflation, 1995-2015 Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I've seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I'd be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I'm not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It's something like that. Stretch: It's a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We're not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary's intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it's dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift's question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we've taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we're making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we're looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that's been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we're engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We're tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it's a balance between free speech and what's real and what's false. And we often see there's a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we're working on the behavior. That's where we're focused right now. We've had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We're trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we're making great strides there, but it's a definite balance. We also have work we've done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who's paying for an ad, what else they're running, what they're targeting, what they're after—especially around electioneering ads, who's paying for it, how much they're spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we're trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we're working hard on this, but it's a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it's ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can't give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can't give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I'm saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let's look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we're asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I'm talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag "NYCTerroristAttack," which is "trending," marked with a red button saying "live," the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, "Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump." This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what's your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it's fake news and at least at some point in time it can't keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That's something we're thinking about all the time because it's a bad user experience, and we don't want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That's not—that shouldn't be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don't have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don't know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you're clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you're seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn't work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as "this was fake news"? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We're an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone's breaking the law, you've got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It's not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something's illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can't just correct it; you've got to say to the public, this isn't true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we've turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something's just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they're seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something's out there that's not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we're removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you're trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something's fake, it doesn't matter if it's from a fake account or some bot or something. If it's just not true and it's wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, "RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States." So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We've heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there're many concerned about RT's slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT's compliance with our policies. We've not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It's a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it's an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency's important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we're addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we're able to limit the distribution. We're also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I'll stop. I'll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I'm smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I'd be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That's how we approach it. That's exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don't want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don't want you to be, either—but today's not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don't understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don't get it, but I'm out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That's the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We've made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That's right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn't you revert RT's preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what's on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it's hundreds of people. We're at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we're dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we're looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There's many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we'll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it's appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it's pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year's elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn't be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you've been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you've been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you've been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you've been a consultant to the FBI's Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life's work. So, when you say, "The Kremlin disinformation playbook," which we're talking about here, "will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers," you're not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You're talking about it as if it's a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don't believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don't stop it now, it's going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don't put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don't decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don't, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what's fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I've been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn't like, doesn't matter what side it is. Kennedy: That's right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I'm teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we're about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that's a good definition, but I'll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I've actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government's paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: FCC Oversight; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I've been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We're willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don't think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers' access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It's the question of, who answers Siri's question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you'll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you're welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn't the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you're privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we're, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I've been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn't mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don't know if you're looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn't get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn't go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn't believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn't take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you're talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: Open Internet Rules; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market "unfettered by federal and state regulation." And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I'm asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order's fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order's many glaring legal flaws, they'll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won't work, to solve a problem that doesn't exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn't have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I'm optimistic that we will look back on today's vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don't know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. Telecommunications Bill Signing: February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it's necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don't have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there's a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we're not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that's pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: Telecommunications Act Part 1; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: Cable Television Deregulation; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they'll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company's central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation's media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it's relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you've got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They're competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that's providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there's a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it's comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don't much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can't discriminate; can't play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can't play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we're going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there's fairness on the playing field. Here's a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can't do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we've applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we're talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don't have? Some must carry and some don't? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president's veto last year, and over cable's objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven't dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that's going to give consumers comparable choices? That's the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company's lines, but the telephone company can't get on the cable system's line? Come on. It seems to me if we're going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: What the world looks like without net neutrality Video: Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tongight with John Oliver Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing The Most Dangerous time of the Year! See more of Adam here! Background music for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

C-SPAN is much more fun with friends! In this special episode, Matt Marr, comedian and host of the Dear Mattie Show, joins Jen at The Comedy Store to discuss three bills that have passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Lots of laughs in this one! Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Matt's Podcast and Social Media Dear Mattie Show Follow Matt on Instagram Follow Matt on Twitter Bills H.R.1430: Honest Act Full Title: "Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017" Prohibits the EPA from creating regulations unless all scientific information used to justify it is published online and can be reproduced. Limits the EPA spending on this new requirement to $1 million per year out of the money they already have Passed the House on March 29, 2017 by a vote of 228-194 Written by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas's 21st district H.R. 953: Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017 Prohibits the EPA Administrator and the States from requiring permits to discharge pesticides into waterways if the pesticide is authorized for sale. Passed the House on May 24, 2017 by a vote of 256-165 Written by Rep. Bob Gibbs of Ohio's 7th district H.R. 806: Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017 Written by Rep. Pete Olsen of Texas's 22nd district Passed the House on July 18, 2017 by a vote of 229-199 Additional Reading Article: Thousands of scientists issue bleak 'second notice' to humanity by Sarah Kaplan, The Washington Post, November 13, 2017. Article: Climate change upped the odds of Harvey's extreme rains study finds by Chris Mooney, The Washington Post, November 13, 2017. Blog: Falling walls: How repairing the ozone hole helped the climate by Guus Velders, Scientific American, November 2, 2017. Article: How climate change likely strengthened recent hurricanes by Craig Welch, National Geographic, September 20, 2017. Article: Scott Pruitt's crimes against nature by Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone, July 27,2017. Article: Oklahoma's earthquake threat now equals California's because of man-made temblors, USGS says by Rong-Gong Lin II, LA Times, March 1, 2017. Interview: Author Jan Mayer on how the Koch brothers have changed America by Lauren Kelley, Rolling Stone, February 14, 2016. Article: The Koch brothers' dirty war on solar power by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, February 11, 2016. Article: Inside the Koch brothers' toxic empire by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, September 24, 2014. Report: 2010 ozone hole smaller than usual, MACC, Winter 2010. References Dear Mattie Show: Show 89: Jen Briney of Congressional Dish & How to Actually Make a Difference in Politics Demographic Info: Demographics of Oklahoma Website: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Data: IPCC Publications and Reports Research: USGS - Induced Earthquakes Myths and Misconceptions Video: Volcanoes of the Deep Weather Records: U.S. Tornado Climatology - Historical Records and Trends Visual References Oklahoma Temperature History - Summer Oklahoma Temperature History - Winter Oklahoma Temperature History - Annual Sound Clip Sources House Session: Clean Water Act Changes, May 24, 2017 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The Veterans Health Administration operates a taxpayer-funded health system to provide our nation's veterans physical and mental health services. The Veterans Choice Program is a fundamental change to that system as it allows veterans to get taxpayer-funded health care in the private sector. In this episode, learn the history of the Veterans Choice Program, discover the changes that Congress and the Trump Administration have made to the program this year, and get some insights into the future of the program. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here 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 H.R. 3230: Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 Allows veterans to get medical care outside the Veteran's Administration system; they can go to any health facility that serves Medicare patients, health centers, the Defense Department, and the Indian Health Service. Veterans are only given this option if they'd have to wait over 30 days for an appointment with the Veteran's Administration or if they live 40 miles or further from a Veteran's Administration clinic. If eligible, the veteran will receive a special identification card. How it works: Veteran notifies VA, VA puts Veteran on an electronic waiting list or authorizes their request, VA works out a payment agreement with the health care provider, VA reimburses health care provider but no more than they would for Medicare services. If the veteran gets treated for a problem that was not related to their military service, their health insurance plan will be responsible for payment and the health care provider will be responsible for going after the insurance company for the money. Veterans can not be charged higher co-payments for care at private facilities than they would have been charged at the Veteran's Administration. This program will end in three years. Orders a private-sector review, establishes a fifteen person commission, and creates a technology task force to review VA practices. Wait times for care can not be considered when determining performance bonuses for top officials at the Veteran's administration and performance goals that disincentivize using private health providers for veteran care will be eliminated. Wait times for health care at the VA, VA facility quality measures, and VA doctor credentials will be published online. The VA will add 1,500 graduate medical education residency positions for five years to address staffing shortages. Extends the program that reimburses medical students for education costs and increases the amounts they'll receive for working for the VA. Expands coverage for mental health care related to sexual assaults, which will include veterans on inactive duty. This will be effective August 7, 2015. Extends a pilot program for assisted living care for veterans with traumatic brain injuries until October 2017. Disqualifies public colleges that charge veterans more than State residents from being qualified schools for veteran education benefits. Makes it easier to fire or transfer senior executives at the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Appropriates $15 billion to implement these changes. S. 544: A bill to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the termination date for the Veterans Choice Program, and for other purposes Eliminates the end date for the Choice Program, which was supposed to expire when the money ran out of after three years. Changes the payment system from one where the veteran's health insurance plan must pay for non-service related treatments, with doctors getting reimbursed directly from the insurance companies to a new system where the Veterans Department will pay and be reimbursed by the insurance companies. Establishes legal permission for the government to share medical records of veterans with "private entities" S. 1094: Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act Title I: Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Creates a new office, headed by a Presidential appointee, in charge of VA employee accountability and processing of whistleblower complaints. This office will have the power to impose disciplinary actions. The identities of whistleblowers must be protected unless the whistleblower consents to disclosure. The Department of Veterans' Affairs must train employees on the whistleblowing process. Title II: Accountability of senior executives, supervisors, and other employees Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to suspend, demote, or fire senior executives as long as the executive receives 15 days advance notice and all evidence against him or her, legal representation, and the ability to argue their case in an official process created by the Secretary that takes no more than 21 days. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to remove, demote, or suspend Veterans Administration employees for performance or misconduct. Demoted employees will have their pay decreased. The demotion or removal process must be completed within 15 business days and the employee has 7 business days to respond. These new procedures "shall supercede any collective bargaining agreement to the extend that such agreement is inconsistent with such procedures.". There is an appeal process but it must be started within 10 business days after the date of the removal, demotion, or suspension. The appeal must be decided within 180 days. The Secretary can not remove, demote, or suspend a whistleblower without approval of a Special Counsel or unless the Assistant Secretary refuses to act on the whistleblower account or unless a final decision has been made regarding the whistleblower's disclosure. Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to order the repayment of bonuses or relocation expenses paid to VA employees if the Secretary determines that the employee engaged in misconduct or poor performance before the bonus was awarded. There is an appeal process via the Office of Personnel Management. S.114: VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 Title I: Appropriation for Veterans Choice Program Deposits $2.1 billion in the Veterans Choice Fund, which will not expire. Title II: Personnel matters Doubles the number of positions that can be labeled has having staffing shortages and gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to directly hire people to those positions. "Executive Management Fellowship Program" A program to give VA employees 1 year of training in the private sector and to give private sector employees 1 year of training in the VA. Between 18 & 30 people from the private sector and the same amount from the VA will be selected in August of each year to participate. To accept the fellowship, the person must agree to work as a full-time employee of the VA for two years and is prohibited from working the corresponding private sector industry for two years after completing the program. Performance Evaluations Political appointees of the VA will have annual performance plans similar to the ones administered to career employees. Promotions Gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to easily promote existing employees or people who voluntarily left within 2 years, one employment status at a time. Employment Opportunity Database Creates a website that will list vacant positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Title III: Major medical facility leases We're paying to replace VA facilities in 28 locations. H.R. 3236: Surface transportation and veterans health care choice improvement act of 2015 Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD080: The July Laws Additional Reading Article: VA secretary David Shulkin: I don't consider this Texas church gunman as a veteran by Melissa Quinn, Washington Examiner, November 6, 2017. Article: Funding for a new veterans choice program remains the big, unresolved question for VA by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 24, 2017. Article: AFGE ramping up anti-privatization campaign, as VA readies new Choice draft by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 17, 2017. Article: Focus on VA hiring, not Veterans Choice, AFGE says by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, October 6, 2017. Article: Trump signs bill to speed up VA disability appeals process by Richard Sisk, Military.com, August 23, 2017. Article: Last-minute Veterans Choice funding bill filled with key VA hiring flexibilities by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 28, 2017. Article: Fix for Veterans Choice shortfalls fails in the House with little funds left by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, July 24, 2017. Radio Transcript: VA pane report to suggest more private care choices for veterans, Morning Edition with David Greene, NPR, July 6, 2017. Article: Shulkin offers first glimpse at a new VA Choice plan by Nicole Ogrysko, Federal News Radio, June 8, 2017. Article: Trump extends program allowing some veterans to use local doctors, hospitals by Lisa Lambert, Reuters, April 19, 2017. News Report: Barry Coates dead; veteran was at heart of VA scandal by Scott bronstein, Nelli Black, Drew Griffin and Curt Devine, CNN Investigations, January 27, 2016. Article: How the VA developed its culture of coverups by David Farenthold, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. Article: Obama accepts resignation of VA secretary Shinseki by Greg Jaffe and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, May 30, 2014. References Budget Plan: 2018 FY Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief GAO Report: Veterans health care: Preliminary observations on veterans access to Choice Program care House Amendment Act: S.114 of the 115th Congress Interactive Timeline: Veterans Choice Program Slideshow: Billing Procedures, VA Veterans Choice Program and Patient-Centered Community Care Strawman Document: Proposed Strawman Assessment Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Bills related to veterans choice; House Committee on Veterans Affairs; October 24, 2017. 02:42 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): To that end, I believe it's important to state yet again that this effort is in no way, shape, or form intended to create a pipeline to privatize the V.A. healthcare system. I want to be completely clear about that. Everyone who participated in the roundtable earlier this month and contributed to the development of this legislation should be completely clear on that. Everyone listening today should also be completely clear on that. Supplemental care sourced from within the community has been a part of the V.A. healthcare system since the 1940s and services to expand V.A.'s reach and strengthen and support the care that V.A. provides. Rhetoric aside, strengthening and support V.A. is what this consideration is about—this conversation is about. It should go without saying that V.A. cannot be everywhere providing everything to every veteran. Expecting V.A. to perform like that sets up the V.A. to fail. That's why my draft bill preserves V.A.'s role as the central coordinator of care for enrolled veteran patients. In addition to consolidating V.A.'s menu of existing community-care programs into one cohesive program, my bill would create a seamless, integrated V.A. system of care that incorporates V.A. providers and V.A. medical facilities where and when they are available to provide care a veteran seeks and a network of V.A. providers in the community who can step up when needed. Under my draft bill, the V.A. generally retains the right of first refusal, meaning that if V.A. medical facilities can reasonably provide a needed service to a veteran, that care will be provided in that facility. But when the V.A. can't do that, my bill would ensure that veterans aren't left out to dry. Press Conference: Trump signs veterans health care bill; C-Span; August 12, 2017. 0:30 David Shulkin: The V.A. Choice and Quality Employment Act has three important components. The first is that this helps us expand our ability to hire medical-center directors and other senior executives to serve in the V.A. This is about leadership, and it's really important that we get the right leaders helping us to do the job for veterans. The second is that this bill authorizes 28 new facility leases that will be in different parts of the country that provide our veterans with updated facilities, something that, again, we are committed to providing our veterans with world-class care. And third, and most important, this bill allows us to continue to be able to provide care in the community for our veterans to make sure that they're getting high-quality care and not waiting for care. Already this year, in the first six months of this year, we have authorized over 15 million appointments for veterans in the community. That's 4 million appointments more than what was experienced at this time last year. So we're making a lot of progress in expanding Choice. Hearing: Fiscal year 2018 Veterans Affairs budget; Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; June 14, 2017. 12:29 David Shulkin: Two years ago—I'm sure you're going to remember in July of 2015 we had too little money in our community-care accounts within the V.A., which we solved with your help by accessing unused funds in the Choice account. So we transferred money from Choice into community care. We now have too little money in the Choice account, which we're working to solve, again working with you, with legislative authority, to replenish funds into the Choice account. So this is the situation that we've described before where for a single purpose of providing care in the community we have two checking accounts, and I will tell you, I wish it were easier than it is. We have to figure out how to balance these two checking accounts at all times. And obviously it's not a science, it's an art; and we're having difficulty with that once again, and that's why we need to work with you to solve it. The Veterans CARE program that we outlined for you last week will solve this recurring problem permanently by modernizing and consolidating all of the community-care accounts, including Choice. Hearing: Examining the Veterans Choice program and the future of care in the community; Committee on Veterans Affairs; June 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary 12:55 David Shulkin: Just in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017, we saw 35% more authorizations for Choice than we did in the first quarter of 2016. So far in fiscal year 2017, we have approximately 18,000 more Choice-authorized appointments per day than we did in fiscal year 2016. But we still have a lot more work to do. That's why we're seeking support for the Veterans Coordinated Access and Rewarding Experiences program, the Veterans CARE program. Let me just go over that again because you need a good acronym in Washington. The Veterans Coordinated Access—that's the C and the A—Rewarding Experiences program—the CARE program. I've testified before and I'll report again today that our overarching concern remains veterans' access to high-quality care when and where they need it. That's regardless of whether the care is in the V.A. or in the community. Our goal is to modernize and consolidate community care. We owe veterans a program that's easy to understand, simple to administer, and that meets their needs. That's the CARE program, and now it's time to get this right for veterans. So we need your help. 14:23 David Shulkin: Here's how veterans could experience V.A. healthcare, with your help. The veteran talks with their V.A. provider. That's a conversation over the phone, virtually, or in person. The outcome is a clinical assessment. The clinical assessment may indicate that the V.A. specialist is the best for the veteran, or it may indicate that community care is best to meet the veteran's needs. If community care is the answer, then the veteran chooses a provider from a high-performing network. That's the veteran choosing a provider from the high-performing network. Assessment tools help veterans evaluate community providers and make the best choices themselves. We may help veterans schedule appointments in the community, or in some circumstances, veterans can schedule the appointments themselves. We make sure community providers have all the information they need to treat the veteran. We get the veteran's record back. We pay the veteran's bill. This is all about individualized, convenient, well-coordinated, modern healthcare and a positive experience for the veteran. If the V.A. doesn't offer the necessary service, then the veteran goes to the community. If the V.A. can't provide timely services, the veteran goes to the community. If there are unusual burdens in receiving care, the veteran goes to the community. If a service at a V.A. clinic isn't meeting quality metrics for specific services, veterans needing that service go to the community while we work to support that clinic to improve its performance. And veterans who need care right away will have access to a network of walk-in clinics. 19:20 David Shulkin: We want to make sure that if the service is low performing, if it's below what the veteran could get in the community, that they have the opportunity—they don't have to leave the V.A. They're given a choice so that they are able to get care in the community or stay at the V.A., because, you know, if a veteran has a good experience and they have trust in their provider, they're going to want to stay where they are. But that is the purpose. The whole idea here is to improve the V.A., not to get more care in the community. And the very best way that I know how to improve health care is to give the patient, in this case the veteran, choice and to make those choices transparent to let everybody see, because then if you're not performing as high-quality service, you're going to want to provide a higher-quality service, because you want to be proud of what you're working on. And I want the V.A. to be improving over time, and I think this will help us do that. 24:42 Sen. Patty Murray (WA): Secretary Shulkin, in your draft of Veteran CARE plan, you outline a number of pilot projects that sound to me uncomfortably like a proposals that are made by the so-called straw-man document. It's from the commission on CARE and by the extreme, and to me unacceptable, plan put forward by the Concerned Veterans of America. And those include creating a V.A. insurance plan and separating it from CARE delivery, dividing the governance of a V.A. insurance plan and the health system, and alternative CARE model that sends veterans directly to the private sector. The goal of those types of initiatives, as originally stated in the straw-man document, is "as V.A. facilities become obsolete and are underused, they would be closed when availability and accessibility of care in the community is assured." Those policies serve not only to dismantle the V.A. and start the health system down to a road to privatization, I just want you to know I will not support them, and I will fight them with everything I have. So, I want to ask you, why are you agreeing to pursue those unacceptable policy options? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and as clearly as you have. I share your goal. I am not in support of a program that would lead towards privatization or shutting down the V.A. programs. What I am in support of is using pilots to test various ideas about governance, about the way that the system should be, organized in the way that we should evolve, because I don't know without testing different ideas whether they're good ideas or not. 35:28 Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): You said something that caught my attention: this will not be an unfettered Choice program— David Shulkin: Yep. Moran: —and I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain to me and to the committee what that means. Shulkin: Yeah. There are some that have suggested that the very best approach is just give veterans a card, a voucher, and let them go wherever they want to go. And I think that there are some significant concerns about that, and you're going to see this proposal is not that. This proposal is to develop a system that is designed for veterans, that coordinates their care, and gives them the options when it's best for in the V.A. and when it's best in the community. Unfettered Choice is appealing to some, but it would lead to, essentially, I believe, the elimination of the V.A. system all together. It would put veterans with very difficult problems out into the community, with nobody to stand up for them and to coordinate their care. And the expense of that system is estimated to be at the minimum $20 billion more a year than we currently spend on V.A. health care. So for all those reasons, I am not recommending that we have unfettered access. At some point in the future, if you design a system right, giving veterans complete choice, I believe in principle, is the direction we should be headed in, but not in 2017. 39:05 Sen. Jon Tester (MT): I want to go back to the Choice program, community care versus V.A. care, and tell you where we're probably all on the same page around this rostrum, but as we're all on the same page and the budget comes out and gives a 33% increase for private-sector care versus a 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A., it doesn't take very many budgets like that and pretty soon you're not going to have any vets going to the V.A., because all the money's going to community care, and they will follow the money. I promise you they will follow the money. I think that—I don't want to put words in the VSO's mouth. He'll have a chance here in a bit—but I think most of the veterans I talk to say, build the V.A.'s capacity. In Montana we don't have enough docs, we don't have enough nurses, we don't have enough of anything. And quite frankly, that takes away from the experience and the quality of care, and so by putting 1.2% increase for care provided directly by the V.A. and 33% for private-sector care, we're privatizing the V.A. with that budget. David Shulkin: Yeah. I told you I wasn't going to say that you were right again, but there's a lot that you said that I think that we both agree with. And the goal is not to privatize the V.A. What we're asking for in this is something we don't have. We need additional flexibility between the money that goes into the community and the money that can be spent in the V.A. Right now we're restricted to a 1% ability to transfer money between. We are seeking that you give us more latitude there for exactly the reason you're talking about, Senator. We need our medical centers and our VISNs to be able to say that they need to build capacity in the V.A. where it's not available. The reason why we're letting people go in the community now is because the V.A. doesn't have it. We have to get them that care. Tester: I got it, but if we don't make the investments so they can get that health care, they'll never get that health care there. Shulkin: I— Tester: Okay. Hearing: Veterans affairs oversight; House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; May 3, 2017. Witness: Dr. David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary 16:13 David Shulkin: More veterans are opting for Choice than ever before, five times more in fiscal year 2016 than fiscal year 2015, and Choice authorizations are still rising. We've issued 35% more authorizations in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 than in the same quarter of 2016. 18:00 David Shulkin: My five priorities as secretary are to provide greater Choice for veterans, to modernize our systems, to focus resources more efficiently, to improve the timeliness of our services, and suicide prevention among veterans. We are already taking bold steps towards achieving each of these priorities. Two weeks ago the president signed a reauthorization of the Veterans Choice Act, ensuring veterans can continue to get care from community providers. Just last week the president ordered the establishment of a V.A. accountability office, and we're moving as quickly as we can within the limits of the law to remove bad employees. V.A. has removed medical center directors in San Juan; Shreveport, Louisiana; and recently we've relieved the medical center director right here in Washington, D.C. and removed three other senior executive service leaders due to misconduct or poor performance. We simply cannot tolerate employees who act counter to our values or put veterans at risk. Since January of this year, we've authorized an estimated 6.1 million community-care appointments, 1.8 million more than last year, a 42% increase. We now have same-day services for primary care and mental health at all of our medical centers across the country. Veterans can now access wait-time data for their local V.A. facilities by using an easy online tool where they can see those wait times. No other healthcare system in the country has this type of transparency. V.A. is setting new trends with public-private partnerships. Last month we announced a public-private partnership of an ambulatory care development center, with a donation of roughly $30 million in Omaha, Nebraska, thanks to Mr. Fortenberry's help there. Veterans now have, or will have, a facility that's being built with far fewer taxpayer dollars than in the past. Finally, V.A. is saving lives. My top clinical priority is suicide prevention. On average 20 veterans a day die by suicide. A few months ago the Veterans Crisis Line had a rollover rate to a backup center of more than 30%. Today that rate is less than 1%. In support of our efforts to reduce suicides, we've launched new predictive modeling tools that allow V.A. to provide proactive care and support for veterans who are at the highest risk of suicide. And I've recently announced the V.A. will be providing emergency mental health care to former service members with other-than-honorable discharges at all of our medical facilities. We know that these veterans are at greater risk for suicide, and we're now caring for them as well as we can. 23:19 David Shulkin: The VISTA system is something that, frankly, V.A. should be proud of. It invented it, it was the leader in electronic health records, but, frankly, that's old history, and we have to look at keeping up and to modernize the system. I've said two things, Mr. Chairman, in the past. I've said, number one is, V.A. has to get out of the business of becoming a software developer. This is not our core competency. I don't see why it serves veterans. I think we're doing this in a way that, frankly, we can't keep up with. So, I've said that we're going to get out of that business. We're either going to find a commercial company that will take over and support VISTA or we're going to go to an off-the-shelf product. And that's really what we're evaluating now. We have an RFI out for, essentially, the commercialization of VISTA that we wouldn't longer be doing internally. 27:33 David Shulkin: We also, as we get more veterans out into the community, out into the private-sector hospitals, we have to be very concerned about interoperability with those partners as well. 38:24 Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL): Given that your goal is one program, are you analyzing which program ultimately would be phased out, because we have a tendency to instead of phasing out programs because they have people with a vested interest in them, simply— David Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —going along to get along rather than rocking the boat, and so if we're adding $3 1/2 billion to the Choice program and it had 950 million left, there have been challenges with the Choice program and confusion, and there are still challenges with the community care program, in what direction is the V.A. thinking of going when we—and what is the timeline for ultimately— Shulkin: Right. Schultz: — phasing out one program and only having one? Shulkin: Right. Well, with almost certainty I can tell you there will not be three programs, because the current Choice program will run out of money— Schultz: Right. Shulkin: —by the end of this calendar year. So, that program is going to go away and should be through December of this year. What we are hoping to do is to work with you so that we can introduce a community-care funding program—the chairman referred to it as Choice 2.0—which is a program that makes sense for veterans, which is a single program that operates under one set of rules for how veterans get care in the community. And that new legislation, which we believe needs to be introduced by late summer or early fall in order to make the timeline, would end up with a single program. Schultz: So, you eventually envision phasing out community care with the advent— Shulkin: Yes. Schultz: —of Choice 2.0. 1:33:11 Rep. Charles Dent (PA): In the one-page FY '18 skinny budget we received in March, there's a V.A. request for $2.9 billion in new mandatory funding, presumably to complete the FY '18 funding for the Choice program after the mandatory $10 billion of the program is completely exhausted in January, I guess. Does this indicate the administration's intent to fund the successor Choice program out of mandatory funding? David Shulkin: Yes. 1:45:37 Rep. Tom Rooney (FL): And many of the providers that are technically participating in the Choice program are refusing to accept Choice patients because they know that they'll have to wait a long time to get paid themselves. So some providers that don't accept the Choice patients will only do so if the veteran agrees to pay for the services up front. And that leaves the veterans in that same bind they were in before Choice, which was either face the excessive wait times at the V.A. facility with no option to obtain immediate care elsewhere without paying out of pocket first. And obviously that's not the point, or that's not what we're looking to do. So, I mean, you as a doctor can probably appreciate, you know, with these people that want to take the Choice program to help veterans but they know that it's going to take forever to get reimbursed be like, hey, will you pay me first, and then, you know, we'll deal with getting reimbursed later. I don't know if that's the rationale, but it sounds like that. The OIG has criticized the V.A.'s monitoring oversight for these contracts and reported that these contracts still don't have performance measures to ensure the contractors pay their providers in a timely manner, and the OIG made this recommendation January 30 of this year. So, as you work to expand the Choice program, how are you implementing the OIG's recommendation specifically with regard to timely reimbursements? David Shulkin: Well, there is no doubt that this is an area of significant risk for us, that monitoring and making sure that the providers are paid is critical because of the issues that you're saying: the veterans are being put in the middle. I would not recommend the veterans put out money for this. That is, as you said, is not the point of it. What we have done is we have done multiple contract modifications. We've actually advanced money to the third-party administrators. I've suspended the requirement that providers have to provide their medical records to us in order to get paid. We are improving our payment cycles through the Choice program, but it's not perfect by any means. We have to get better at our auditing of these processes, and those were the IG recommendations, and we are working on doing that. So this is a significant area of risk for us. In the reauthorization, or the redesign, of the Choice program, what we're calling Choice 2.0, we want to eliminate the complexity of this process. The private sector does not have to do the type of adjudication of claims that we do. They do auto adjudification. They do electronic claims payments. We just are not able to, under this legislation, do all the things that, frankly, we know are best practices. That's what we want to get right in Choice 2.0. 1:56:40 David Shulkin: Our care needs to be focused on those that are eligible for care, particularly when we have access issues. So, I'd be glad to talk to you more about that. I do want to just mention two things. First of all, our policy is for emergency mental health care for other-than-honorable, not dishonorably, discharged; dishonorably discharged who were not— Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): Sorry if I misspoke. David Shulkin: Yeah, yeah, okay. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): But I do applaud you for those efforts. David Shulkin: I just wanted to clarify that. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): I know that there are a lot of wounds that are mental, of course, and— David Shulkin: Absolutely. Rep. Scott Taylor (VA): —I get that. I applaud you for those efforts. Hearing: Veterans affairs choice program; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; March 7, 2017. Witness: David Shulkin - Veterans Affairs Secretary Michael Missal - Veterans Affairs Inspector General Randall Williamson - GAO Health Care Team Director 20:35 David Shulkin: However, we do need your help. The Veterans Choice Program is going to expire in less than six months, but our veterans' community-care needs will not expire. This looming expiration is a cause for concern among veterans, providers, and V.A. staff, and we need help in eliminating the expiration date of the Choice program on August 7, 2017 so that we can fully utilize the remaining Choice funds. Without congressional action, veterans will have to face longer wait times for care. Second, we need your help in modernizing and consolidating community care. Veterans deserve better, and now is the time to get this right. We believe that a modernized and revised community-care program must have seven key elements. First, maintain a high-performing integrated network that includes V.A., federal partners, academic affiliates, and community providers. Second, increase Choice for all veterans, starting with those with cer—(audio glitch). Third, ensure that enrolled veterans get the care they need closer to their homes, when appropriate. Fourth, optimize coordination of V.A. healthcare benefits with the health insurance that an enrolled veteran already has. Fifth, maintain affordability of healthcare options for the lowest-income enrolled veterans. Sixth, assist in coordination of care for veterans served by multiple providers. And last, apply industry standards for performance quality, patient satisfaction, payment models, and healthcare outcomes. 23:24 Michael Missal: In October 2015, V.A. provided Congress with a plan to consolidate all V.A.'s purchased care programs into V.A.'s community-care program. Under consolidation, V.A. continues to have problems determining eligibility for care, authorizing care, making accurate payments, providing timely payments to providers, and ensuring the necessary coordination of care provided to veterans outside the V.A. healthcare system. 30:30 Randall Williamson: Finally, substantial resources will likely be needed to carry out Choice 2.0. Resources needed to fund IT upgrades and new applications for Choice are largely unknown but could be costly. Proposed changes in Choice eligibility requirements, such as eliminating the 30-day, 40-mile requirement for eligibility, could potentially greatly increase the number of veterans seeking care through community providers and drive costs up considerably. Also, if medical-center staff begin scheduling all appointments under Choice 2.0, as V.A. currently envisions, hiring more V.A. staff will likely be costly and tediously slow. Already, since Choice was established, V.A. medical-center staff devoted to helping veterans access non-V.A. care have increased threefold or more at many locations. 1:04:00 David Shulkin: We are looking primarily at technological solutions, and we are looking at the use of telehealth, which we are doing across V.A. on a scale that no other health system in America is even approaching—2.1 million visits; over 700,000 veterans getting access through telehealth services—and so we are looking at this very seriously about dramatically expanding its use to be able to support where we don't have health professionals. 1:06:20 David Shulkin: Remember, we have four missions. The clinical care is what we always talk about, but we also have an education mission. We train more American healthcare professionals than any other organization in the country, we have research that's dedicated solely to the improvement of the wellbeing of veterans, and we also serve a national emergency-preparedness role. So, all four of these missions are very important to us. I would just say two things. One thing is we know from the Choice program that only 5,000 of the several—of more now than a million veterans who've used the program chose only to use the Choice program. So they're saying exactly what your constituent told you, which is the V.A. is essential and important to them. But we are not going to allow the V.A. programs to be diluted, and one of the reasons why that's so important is that we need to modernize the V.A. system. Our lack of capitalizing the V.A. system in terms of the buildings, the equipment, the IT systems, could make it a noncompetitive system. But we're going to make sure that the facilities that are open are the best for veterans, and veterans are going to want to continue to get their care there. The community-care program is a way to make sure that we supplement the V.A. in an integrated fashion. 1:10:00 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): The department itself has estimated that it can treat and cure most of the remaining 124,000 diagnosed cases of hepatitis C within the next three years. Is it the V.A.'s commitment that that timeline will be held to and that these will be treated regardless of the level of their liver disease or where they might be at? David Shulkin: Yes. Thanks to the support from Congress, we were provided the resources to meet that timeline. I actually think we're going to beat it, but with one caveat. What we've learned is that our initial outreaches, we were getting thousands and thousands of veterans to come in and to get treatment. We have a treatment, of course, as you know, that now cures more than 95% of hepatitis C. So it's tremendous medical advance. The doctor to my right is one of those doctors. He's an I.D. doctor who does this in his clinical work at the V.A. Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Shulkin: What we're finding now is, and if Dr. Yehia wants to comment on this, we're finding that we're now seeing less and less veterans coming in to get cured. There is a substantial number of veterans for a number of reasons, either psychological reasons or social reasons, who are not taking advantage of this care. And so this is now becoming a research question for us. How do we have to begin to approach people that are saying, I have a disease that may end up killing me, but I'm not interested in the treatment. And so I think we're going to beat your three-year timeline, but there's still going to be a subset of veterans that don't want to come in and get care. 1:12:50 Rep. Mike Bost (IL): What would happen if we didn't make that extension go past the August 7, and what would be the final cutoff if we don't get it past? David Shulkin: Well, first of all, if we don't do this extension, this is going to be a disaster for American veterans. We're going to see the same situation that we saw in April 2014, that Senator Kaine started out tonight with, that we saw in Phoenix. And so here's the timeline. We do need to do this now. As I think Chairman Roe referred to, already today veterans are not able to use the Choice program, because the law states that we have to obligate the funds now for when the care is going to be delivered. So a pregnant veteran who comes to us and says, I want to get care using the Choice program, they no longer can, because nine months from now is past August 7. But this is now beginning to happen with care that is multiple months in length, like oncology care and chemotherapy and other types of therapies. We have a chart that shows that when you start getting towards the end of April to May, this is where you're going to start seeing a large number of veterans not being able to get access to care, because episodes of care that we're used to, like hip replacements and other things, are generally three to four months. So we think the time is now that we need to act. Bost: Okay, so, but what we're doing is not any intention to privatize or anything like that. This is just making sure that those people who are on the Choice program, that we are moving forward to make sure that those services are provided. Shulkin: Not only that, but this is not going to cost any additional money. We are just seeking the authority to spend the money that you've already given us past August 7 of this year. 1:17:15 David Shulkin: We are going to go and we are going to start providing mental health care for those that are other-than-honorably discharged for urgent mental health. And we want to work with Representative Coffman on his bill on this, and we want to do as much as we can. But I don't think it can wait, and so we're going to start doing that now. I believe that's in the secretary's authority to be able to do that. Hearing: A call for system-wide change; House Committee for Veterans Affairs; October 7, 2015. Witnesses: Robert McDonald: then Secretary of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin: Under Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Brett Giroir: Senior Fellow at the Texas medical Center Health Policy Institute 13:37 Robert McDonald: As you know, we have five strategies: first is improving the veteran experience, second is improving the employee experience, third is achieving support-service excellence, fourth is establishing a culture of continuous improvement, and fifth is enhancing strategic partnerships, and we would be happy to drill down on those during the question period. 14:17 Robert McDonald: In the past year, we've moved out aggressively in response to the access crisis, meeting increasing demand and expanding capacity on four fronts: more staffing, more space, more productivity, and more V.A. care in the community. During that period of time, we've completed 7 million more appointments for veterans of completed care: 4 1/2 million in the community, 2 1/2 million within V.A. We've added more space, we've added more providers, we've added more extra hours, all in effect to get more veterans in. But because of that, and because we've done a better job of caring for veterans, we have more veterans desiring care. So even those 97% of appointments are now completed within 30 days of the needed or preferred date, the number not completed in 30 days has grown from 300,000 to nearly 500,000. 16:15 Robert McDonald: We simply can't make many necessary changes because of statutory limitations. We need to consolidate our various care in the community programs. We need a freer hand to hire, assign, and reward the executives we task to act as change agents. We need a freer hand in disposing of outdated, unused, or little-used facilities. We need a freer hand in the management of existing facilities so facilities' managers can adjust their use of resources to the changing needs of veterans. 25:47 Brett Giroir: As background, in 2014 9.1 million of 21.6 million U.S. veterans were enrolled in the VHA. Of these, 5.8 million were actual patients, and on average these patients relied on the VHA for much less than 50% of their healthcare services. These demographic data combined with access challenges suggest reconsideration of whether the VHA should aim to be the comprehensive provider for all veterans' health needs or whether the VHA should evolve into more focus centers providing specialized care while utilizing non-VHA providers for the majority of veterans' healthcare needs. Either paradigm could be highly beneficial to veterans as long as the demand and resources are prospectively aligned and there is a consolidation of current programs to simplify access to non-VHA providers. 30:05 David Shulkin: The V.A. approach is to find the very best care that serves the veterans, and I think that we've shown that in response to our access crisis that we have encouraged the use of community care to address our access issues. I think the difference here between—maybe what I would expand on what Dr. Giroir said is that the care that V.A. provides is very, very different than the care that the private sector provides. The V.A. provides a much more comprehensive approach than just dealing with physical-illness issues. It provides psychological and social aspects of care that actually meet the needs of what veterans require. And that's why I think that we really do need to do what Dr. Giroir said, which is to see what VHA provides best for our veterans and what care can be provided by the private sector, and it's that hybrid-type system that's going to meet our veteran's needs. 34:39 Former Rep. Corrine Brown (FL): I think the elephant in the room is that there are people out there that would actually want to just completely close the V.A. and privatize the entire V.A. system, which is totally unacceptable and it is absolutely not what the veterans want. And as you begin, I want you to discuss flexibility, but I want you to let people know how many people we actually serve every day throughout this country. Robert McDonald: Thank you, Ranking Member Brown. As I was going through my confirmation process, I often got the question from senators why—you know, from some senators, small group—why don't we get rid of the V.A. and just give out vouchers? So I studied that—as a business person, I wanted to know—and what I discovered was V.A.'s not only essential for veterans, it's essential for American medicine and it's essential for the American people. Three-legged stool: research. We spent $1.8 billion a year on research. We invented the nicotine patch. We were the ones who discovered the aspirin was important for heart disease—take an aspirin every day. First liver transplant. First implantable pacemaker. Last year two V.A. doctors invented the shingles vaccine. I could go on. That research is important for the American people, and I didn't even mention posttraumatic stress or traumatic brain injury or prosthetics, things that we're known for. Second, training. We trained 70% of the doctors in this country. Who's going to train those doctors without the V.A.? We have also the largest employer of nurses and the largest trainer of nurses. Third leg is clinical work. Our veterans get the best clinical care because our doctors are doctors that not only do the clinical care but also do research and teach in the best medical schools of our country. So I think the American people benefit from the V.A., and it would be a big mistake to even think about privatizing it. 1:06:06 Rep. Phil Roe (TN): Let me go right to what I wanted to talk about which is my own veteran's officer at home—person that does my work at home—and basically what she's saying is, how do you get an appointment through the Veterans Choice Program? She said she had been trying to put together a summary, and what's happening is there're two ways you get in there: a veteran can either be eligible by a 30-day wait list or more than 40 miles. And the most of problems she saw were the 30-day list. And this is what happens. Below is the information's been given to me by the roll out of the program. In my experience, there appears to be a breakdown somewhere in this process but have been unable to get clear answers on how to fix it. The V.A. blames TriWest; TriWest blames the V.A. Eligibility is determined by the V.A. primary-care doctor if the appointment's passed 30 days. The non-V.A. care staff then uploads this list of eligible veterans to the V.A. central office here in Washington nightly, and the veteran's told to wait five to seven days and then call TriWest. The central office then sends the information to TriWest, can take three to seven days. If the consults don't get added, medical documentation didn't get uploaded, authorizations gets canceled, then the veteran's on a merry-go-round. Look, when they came to my office to get an appointment, I said, you need an appointment with Dr. Smith. They went out front and made the appointment. That's what should happen. It ain't that complicated. And all of this in between—and I could go on and on—TriWest has a different view of it, and I want to submit this to the record because it really gets to the bottom of what's actually going— Unknown Chairman: Not objection. Roe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The non-V.A. care staff were given no training on this, and they basically were left just to wing it, how to make these appointments. That was one of the things was brought up in the report. Our local V.A. care—non-V.A. care staff—increased from 5 to 15 but still are struggling to make all these appointments, and there's talk of—now, listen to this right here—there is talk of calling each patient for every appointment to make sure they keep it. If the patient says, I don't want to go, they still are told to call them two times a month until the past the appointment time. That's a complete waste of time. And the outpatient clinics also ought to be able to add patients to the electronic wait list instead of sending them over because appointment may come up; veterans get left out like that. And the TriWest portal is not very friendly. Private doctors did not like jumping through all the hoops of the Choice programmers saying they must give a percent of their fee to TriWest in order for TriWest to file the claim. So, we have a clinic that's closing in our office, in our V.A., on a chiropractic and pulmonary clinic, because the doctors are just fed up with the way the system is. It's so bureaucratic. So, anyway, I could go on and on. This is a very extensive—this is on-the-ground stuff that's going on today at our medical center, and I bet you it's going on around the country. And I think these are things I will submit to you so you can get to work on this, and, again, appreciate the effort that you put into it. Mr. Chairman, there's some valuable information here for the V.A. to use. And I yield back. Unknown Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Brown, you had a question. Corrine Brown: I do, because I want the secretary to answer that, because I think—I'm meeting with TriWest today—but the important thing is, you can't send a veteran to an agency or anywhere until they get prior approval from the V.A. because the most important thing is that that doctor get that reimbursement. So can you clear this up? I mean, no person in my office can send someone to a doctor; it must go through the system so that you get prior approval. And once that's done, how long—why does it take so long for that physician to get reimbursed, and can he answer that question? Robert McDonald: We have flowcharted that process, and let me let David talk about the improvements that we've made to that process. He'll answer questions one and three, and I'll take two on the facilities. David Shulkin: Okay. Dr. Roe, I think your old adage on the three A's is exactly right. And you have to remember we brought this Choice system up in 90 days. This is a national, very complex system, and what we've heard after bringing it up in 90 days is exactly the type of feedback that you've been hearing from your constituents. The secretary and I are both out in the field, we understand that these problems are happening, and so what we've begun to do is to redesign the system and to process-map it out. Both the secretary and I spoke to the CEO of TriWest last evening, and we are beginning now to make outbound calls to the veterans before they had to call in. We are beginning to actually embed TriWest staff in the V.A. so that they're working in teams, and we're beginning to start eliminating some of those steps. It is going to take a while. It is painful to watch this when you hear stories like what you're hearing, but we understand the problems there, we are working very hard, we think TriWest and Health Net are working to help us make the system better, and we're committed to doing this with urgency. 1:58:08 David Shulkin: We do have a crisis in leadership. We have too many open, vacant positions. We have too many people in acting positions and interim positions. You can't expect that you're going to have a transformation in a health system unless you have stable leadership in place. We need your help on this. We need your help to help create the V.A. to be an environment people want to come and serve and to be excited about, and we are asking for your help in Title 38 for the—Hybrid Title 38—to be able to help get the right type of compensation for leadership positions in V.A. That will help us a lot. Hearing: HR 1994 VA accountability act and HR 3236 surface transportation and veterans health care choice improvement act; House Rules Committee; July 28, 2015. 1:28:40 Bradley Byrne (AL): We don't need to have a government-run healthcare system for our veterans. We need to transition out of it and give all of our veterans a card, just like an insurance card. Hearing: Veterans Affairs health care and budget; House Veterans Affairs Committee; July 22, 2015. 19:20 Robert McDonald Clinical output has increased 8% while budget has increased 2%, 35% more people (1.5 million beneficiaries) 20:22 Robert McDonald Increased Choice authorizations by 44% (900,000), 4% more appointments, percentages of wait times, wait times for types of care 21:50 Robert McDonald Care crisis of 2014 was caused by an imbalance in supply and demand, VA has been governing to fit a budget, not making budget fit the care, stats on new enrollees, 147% increase. enrolled veterans use VA for 34% of their care 56:00 Robert McDonald Here is a packet explaining the transformation of the VA, we have an advisory board full of CEOs, VA is going through the largest transformation in it's history 1:09:40 Tim Heulskamp (KS) Concerned that money will be redirect away from Choice and he thinks "many employees" are not supportive of Choice, throws out bullshit numbers James Tuchschmidt corrects him and said they took money out to pay for the Hepatitis C drug 1:11:50 Tim Heulskamp wants to know why only two people have been fired for the wait time scandal. Robert McDonald many have retired, one indictment, 1,300 have been fired, new leadership, 7 million more appointments this year 1:27:30 Rep.Jackie Walorski (IN) Veterans died because of the Veteran's Administration, I wanted to see people go to prison, list of things she's pissed about, "Nothing is working" Robert McDonald 300,000 on wait list a year ago, low wait times, 1:35:00 McDonald we need a better system for anticipating what demand will be. 34% of eligible people are using VA system right now 1:35:20 Robert McDonald the crisis in 2014 was due to Vietnam vets, not Iraq & Afghanistan and we need to prepare as they age 1:36:00 Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) Why don't we "refer out" the care that's not directly related to military service? Robert McDonald people like to have all their doctors in one place, private sector doctors have to treat veterans differently - different questions to ask 1:41:00 Phil Roe (TN) Getting veterans outside care should be be through 1 program because it "aught to be easy" 1:43:50 Robert McDonald Moral is low because people don't want to be called out for not caring. They work hard every day 1:46:00 Kathleen Rice (D-NY) Why is there a budget shortfall? Robert McDonald 7 million more veterans needed care. "That's the reason" 1:56:00 Mark Takano (D-CA) New way of operating with non-VA providers - "Care in the Community" - not a conspiracy to "disappear the VA" - That's why we changed the name 2:05:00 Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) We should "outsource" collections" of payment from veterans with other insurance James Tuchschmidt We are looking at doing that. Wenstrup we should take bids. 2:18:00 Robert McDonald We are in favor of Choice program & we need to know about any employees who aren't because "that would be wrong" - Don't care where they get care as long as it's great care 2:20:00 Jerry McNerney (D-CA) Do you favor public private partnerships? Robert McDonald Yes, it's part of our transformation strategy. we have an "office of strategic parterships" 2:22:55 James Tuchschmidt We thought more people would use Choice, the goal was to not have vets waiting more than 30 days for care, we're asking to use that money to pay for care we purchased, we want a bill before you leave in August 2:28:00 James Tuchschmidt We've treated over 20,000 veterans with hepatitis C and veterans can use the Choice Program to get their treatment Rep.Ralph Abraham (LA) $500 million would be designated for Hepatitis C treatment Robert McDonald yes Hearing: Non-VA care: An integrated solution for veteran access; House Veterans Affairs Committee; June 18, 2014. 50:40 Rep. Beto O'Rourke (TX): Why have the V.A. at all? Why not privatize that care? The private sector could do it better. What's missing in the V.A. is competition. Our veterans deserve the very best. Let's not keep them in this institution that's not working. From veterans, almost to a person, I hear, if I get in the V.A., I love the care. I'm treated very, very well. The outcomes are great. Don't touch the V.A. So, what do you do best, and what does the V.A. do best? And five years down the road, after we get out of this current crisis, what will this look like? Unknown Speaker: That's a great question. And it's an honor to serve El Paso, where I spent part of my childhood when my dad was in the army as a doc. I will tell you that I hope it does not take five years. And I think everybody else would echo that statement. My belief is that the first phase is to make sure that the program that the V.A. has invested taxpayer money in—VAPC3—is put in place, is mature, that the processes on the V.A. side are mature, that our processes are mature, and that together we're identifying where those pockets of veterans are that might not otherwise be able to get what they need in a complete capacity through the direct V.A. system because they lack the capacity to deliver on all the needs, and that the V.A. syst— Yes, sir. O'Rourke: Let me—I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I do want to understand what you think beyond taking care of capacity issues when the V.A.'s not able to see someone in a reasonable period of time. Are there specific kinds of care that you all would be better equipped to take care of? For example, I often think the V.A. is or should be better at handling PTSD or the aftereffects of traumatic brain injury because they see so many people like that as opposed to your typical health system or hospital. Maybe that's a V.A. center of excellence. Is there something on the outside that we should just move all appointments or consults or procedures in a given area over to the private sector or let the private sector compete for? Unknown Speaker: Great question. My personal view is that it's too early to ask that question—or to answer it, probably a better way to put it. It's early to ask it, it's right to ask it, you're looking over the horizon line, but that we first need to get the pieces plugged together. And then there needs to be a make-by decision, category by category, and facility by facility, to look at what's best done with taxpayer funds. Is it best to have the direct system provide care for four veterans in a particular category? Is that really necessary? Or should we buy that on the outside because it's more efficient and more effective? 54:30 O'Rourke: You know, I've been on this committee for a year and a half now—it's my first year in Congress—but I'd never been approached by a lobbyist on my way in to a meeting. Today I was, who represents providers in the private sector in El Paso and said, we have a hard time getting paid. It takes us a year sometimes. We want to see these veterans who are not able to be seen by the V.A., but it's going to be really hard to do this if we don't get paid. 1:34:00 Jolly: We need to do even more in providing a veteran choice. This, bottom line. The question, though, is how do we do that in a way that's fiscally responsible? And so my question for you generally—and again, if you don't have enough information, that's certainly fine—in your role of supporting non-V.A. care, can you give either an assessment, if you have the technical information, or if it's just in a working opinion on the cost effectiveness compared to traditional care, realizing that we have hard infrastructure costs within our V.A. system that aren't reflective when you go to non-V.A. We can look at all sorts of data. I'm somebody who thinks typically data's manipulated to get whatever outcome or position we want to finally be able to support. But can you give an opinion or assessment on the cost effectiveness of non-V.A. care versus within the V.A.? Ms. Doody: I can tell you from our experience with Project ARCH—and I wish I could give you specific numbers, sir—the company Altarum, who was contracted to collect this information—my understanding is they're going to report back to you folks in 2015—are looking at the cost of care per veteran. From my understanding, it is less than if they would have gone to a V.A. facility for certain procedures. So, again, it's anecdotal. It may be geographic; I can't comment on the other regions or other states in our nation. But also just limiting the amount of mileage, the travelling that the veteran would have to do travelling to a V.A. hospital to receive care as a savings to the system also. 1:45:00 Titus: You confirm that you can't talk about the cost effectiveness; there's just not enough data there, yet you think it's working pretty well, but we don't have any hard figures, and we also know that CVO's been kind of unable to assess the cost going forward, and nobody's talking about how to pay for it. Yet, we are moving pell mell towards more veterans using this kind of non-V.A. care. And it's not that I'm opposed to that, but I want us to do it right or else we'll be having hearings five years from now, talking about all the problems with non-V.A. care. Now, to hear y'all talk about it, you're not having any problems; things are working great under your networks. But we know that's not true, either. I mean, there are problems out there, and we need to be serious about how to address them from the beginning. Now, as I understand it, y'all are just kind of like the middleman, like Sallie Mae and Medicare Advantage, where you have a contract to provide a service. That's fine, but as you push more people out into the private sector, do you see your kind of business growing, or is your network going to cover more areas, or are more new networks and competition going to come on to be part of this new system that we're going to be creating? Hearing: A continued assessment of delays in VA medical care and preventable veteran deaths; House Veterans Affairs Committee; April 9, 2014. 2:35 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): On Monday, shortly before this public hearing, V.A. provided evidence that a total of 23 veterans have died due to delays and care at V.A. medical centers. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our committee still doesn't know when they may have happened beyond the statement from V.A. that they most likely occurred between 2010 and 2012. These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the V.A.'s consult review, this committee has reviewed at least 18 preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection-control practices, and a whole host—a whole host—of maladies that plagued the V.A. healthcare system all across this great nation. 8:53 Rep. Jeff Miller (FL): Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not personally persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew that they needed. That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had Stage IV colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and to his liver. 13:55 Barry Coates: My name is Barry Lynne Coates, and due to the inadequate and lack of followup care I received through the V.A. system, I stand here before you terminally ill today. 16:10 Barry Coates: I've talked to numerous veterans since all this occurred, and a lot of them, I hear the same story like my story, you know, why didn't we receive help, why didn't I get care earlier, why didn't it get outsourced? And outsourced is probably a good thing that needs to be put into policy if it's backed up to a part they can't control. CNN Report: Veterans dying because of health care delays, January 30, 2014. Music Presented in this Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations