Congressional Dish – Details, episodes & analysis

On the ground coverage of the Democratic National Convention, which was not as joyful and unified as the party wanted it to seem. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Ballot Deadline Reuters Fact Check. July 30, 2024. Reuters. Biden’s Speech: Stop Arming Israel Banner C-SPAN. Democracy Now! on YouTube. Rep. Ro Khanna on the Young Turks The Young Turks (@TheYoungTurks). August 23, 2024. AIPAC Spending Joan E Greve et al. April 22, 2024. The Guardian. Gaza Death Toll Malak A Tantesh and Emma Graham-Harrison. August 15, 2024. The Guardian. Harris Speech August 22, 2024. C-SPAN. Music by Editing Production Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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